2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jan 26, 2018 14:44:37 GMT
Yes, the Q & A after Tuesday's performance was really telling. On stage were the director, Andrea's Dunbar's biographer and Clio Barnard - the filmmaker who made the verbatim docu-drama about Dunbar, "The Arbor" Some of the reactions from the audience once again highlighted the sheer ignorance of middle class, affluent Londoners in their understanding of the play and by the way they criticised the characters actions. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 16:04:29 GMT
Yes, the Q & A after Tuesday's performance was really telling. On stage were the director, Andrea's Dunbar's biographer and Clio Barnard - the filmmaker who made the verbatim docu-drama about Dunbar, "The Arbor" Some of the reactions from the audience once again highlighted the sheer ignorance of middle class, affluent Londoners in their understanding of the play and by the way they criticised the characters actions. This 'reception' is twisted by the nature of the audience at the Court and, further, by the presentation of the play at a time when, given the Court's response, it could only be seen through the lens of #metoo. The 'text' is there and will continue to be so, the 'production' has issues given its provenance but the 'reception' is the real problem for this particular theatre at this particular time. Reviews from the tour referred to the 'non-judgmental' writing and, yes, how it is 'dated' (these mentioned two or three times) yet a number of reviews at the Court seemed to go out of their way to praise the subtle judgements made and how relevant it now was.
Another venue with less of the Sloane Square about it at a time when the focus was not on matters that would twist it into a different message would be preferable.
|
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jan 26, 2018 16:29:53 GMT
sheer ignorance of middle class, affluent Londoners I think "Londoners" may be superfluous. Simple class lines are enough, would be my guess. Plus Home Counties inhabitants!  |
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jan 26, 2018 16:32:01 GMT
Yes, the Q & A after Tuesday's performance was really telling. On stage were the director, Andrea's Dunbar's biographer and Clio Barnard - the filmmaker who made the verbatim docu-drama about Dunbar, "The Arbor" Some of the reactions from the audience once again highlighted the sheer ignorance of middle class, affluent Londoners in their understanding of the play and by the way they criticised the characters actions. This 'reception' is twisted by the nature of the audience at the Court and, further, by the presentation of the play at a time when, given the Court's response, it could only be seen through the lens of #metoo. The 'text' is there and will continue to be so, the 'production' has issues given its provenance but the 'reception' is the real problem for this particular theatre at this particular time. Reviews from the tour referred to the 'non-judgmental' writing and, yes, how it is 'dated' (these mentioned two or three times) yet a number of reviews at the Court seemed to go out of their way to praise the subtle judgements made and how relevant it now was.
Another venue with less of the Sloane Square about it at a time when the focus was not on matters that would twist it into a different message would be preferable.
Agree. And the director admitted that the audience reception of the play in other parts of the country on the tour has been quite raucous in places! Maybe this highlights another kind of British population divide - the North/South one?.... |
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jan 26, 2018 16:33:03 GMT
Yes, the Q & A after Tuesday's performance was really telling. On stage were the director, Andrea's Dunbar's biographer and Clio Barnard - the filmmaker who made the verbatim docu-drama about Dunbar, "The Arbor" Some of the comments from the audience once again highlighted the sheer ignorance of middle class, affluent Londoners in their understanding of the play and by the way they criticised the characters actions. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 16:44:05 GMT
You guys should have been at the Royal Court the night I saw it, raucous laughter at almost every line, even when no reasonable person could have thought the line funny. Honestly, it was like being in the West End...
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jan 26, 2018 22:59:51 GMT
I did think this "Metropolitan Liberal Elite" London crowd were definitely somewhat po faced about lines that were intentionally funny. It was a thin house yesterday, but there were a few sniggers and one or two real laughs, fortunately. I'm very glad I saw it in Bolton, in a more or less full house, among an audience who didn't subconsciously look down on the play's working-class northern characters and setting. (It's twenty years since I lived in London, but I'm back there quite regularly and see a fair amount of theatre there. London audiences have some defining character quirks, and that, unfortunately, is one of them.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 23:06:30 GMT
VF might have had more reason to ban it because of her snooty audience than for its#metoo resonances. And Caryl Churchill might have agreed with her.
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jan 27, 2018 5:16:13 GMT
I saw this on Thursday evening (missing @theatremonkey.com by hours - shame!) and from a circle slips seat, where I've never sat before but chose both to save money and because I wasn't originally planning to see this. It was fine apart from having to lean forward but I don't think I missed much, if anything, with this production, which I enjoyed far more than I expected to.
I'm a little concerned about the disparaging comments re London (etc) audiences, as aren't we all entitled to see plays and shows, regardless of our background or location, and to react to them in our own way? Inevitably people's views and responses will be determined by their background but when I attend regional performances, I don't presume to comment on what I perceive to be the nature of the local audience - and about which I could of course be completely wrong.
That said - so castigate me if you will - I found the play far funnier than I recall the film being, irrespective of the final scene, and the reason I didn't originally plan to see this was largely because my vague memory of the film was that it was unremittingly grim and hopeless, whereas the female characters in the stage production came across as spirited and determined to get on with their lives whatever their circumstances. But maybe that's my southerner's stereotypical interpretation of them as "plucky northerners" - how would I know?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 11:13:51 GMT
Location is only a factor because of the way it affects the type of audience you get, even within London there’s a difference between similar theatres, such as the Young Vic and Almeida. As theatremonkey suggested, location isn’t really the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 11:43:17 GMT
Location is only a factor because of the way it affects the type of audience you get, even within London there’s a difference between similar theatres, such as the Young Vic and Almeida. As theatremonkey suggested, location isn’t really the issue. There is an air of exclusivity about the RC. Although I try to see as much there as I can I wouldn’t ordinarily choose to spend time or have a meal there. In some ways even the NT feels more welcoming because its sheer size means that there are lots of places for you to relax, have a coffee or eat in. I feel that ADs need to work on ways to make diverse audiences feel comfortable in their buildings. |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jan 27, 2018 11:52:18 GMT
Not sure if is only location, when I saw it there was a wide age range with my generation, a teenager in the late 70’s early 80’s appreciating the humour in it’s entirety and even more for me as I only moved South in the last few years.
Similar to Road it was definitely of it’s time, not sure how the despondency, high unemployment, extreme politics of the early 80’s relates today with most people corralled into Universities and society determined life plans. (University, Job in Media, House, Children, Retire to the Med)
I had forgotten about YTS referenced in the play, bought back memories of the Job Centre, was fortunate to claim dole in the University summer break and meeting the Rita’s Sue’s an Bob’s first hand.
Give me the earthiness of Rita Sue and Bob Too over a lot of new writing which seems more focused on middle class issues. We now have an expectation to be successful. Rita and Sue only saw a life of low pay, marriage, kids and just wanted to make the most of the interlude between school (which most people left at 16) was and drudgery.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 28, 2018 19:54:45 GMT
Btw, the interview with Lesley Manville on this week's Woman's Hour touched briefly on her work on the original production of Rita, Sue and Bob Too.
|
|
1,499 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jan 30, 2018 0:46:24 GMT
castigate me if you will - I found the play far funnier than I recall the film being, irrespective of the final scene, and the reason I didn't originally plan to see this was largely because my vague memory of the film was that it was unremittingly grim and hopeless, whereas the female characters in the stage production came across as spirited and determined to get on with their lives whatever their circumstances. But maybe that's my southerner's stereotypical interpretation of them as "plucky northerners" - how would I know?! Castigate me too, Showgirl. I found it very funny. The cultural move, since the play was written, towards a classification of everything Andrea Dunbar writes about here as "abuse" (2 15 years old schoolgirls groomed by a 27 year old adult man), makes the playwright's authentic voice seem even more surprising, insistent, defiant and funny than it originally was. It's the implicit finger she raises to establishment judgement, of her life experience, that makes it funny. Dunbar suggests that the arbitrary legal line, between ages 15 and 16 is not so clear cut, that there may be girls of 15 who are not children (and implicitly, also, that there may be girls above those ages who are still children). (Spoilers follow) By having 2 girls and only one man, Dunbar skews the scenario, so that the man is outnumbered, and so that the girls do not seem like victims. He does all the "work," while the girls tell jokes about him. His ego is more fragile than theirs, in Dunbar's recounting, and it's his arse she humiliatingly exposes to the audience. Dunbar even suggests the girls are not the "virgins" that Bob thinks they are, so they outwit him on every count. Dunbar's focus ultimately is on affirming the value of female camaraderie, more than anything else, so she gives the whole show an insistent feelgood vibe. Of course, all this is very very VERY problematic. But that's exactly WHY it's funny. It's funny that Dunbar, dead 28 years, can still have The Stage's "most influential" person in UK theatre, in 2018, running around in circles, like a confused chicken. And also, those performances in this production, were SO natural and effortlessly funny, with Gemma Dobson a standout star, in an absolutely terrific ensemble. |
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jan 31, 2018 17:43:22 GMT
I saw this on Thursday evening (missing @theatremonkey .com by hours - shame!) and from a circle slips seat, where I've never sat before but chose both to save money and because I wasn't originally planning to see this. It was fine apart from having to lean forward but I don't think I missed much, if anything, with this production, which I enjoyed far more than I expected to. I'm a little concerned about the disparaging comments re London (etc) audiences, as aren't we all entitled to see plays and shows, regardless of our background or location, and to react to them in our own way? Inevitably people's views and responses will be determined by their background but when I attend regional performances, I don't presume to comment on what I perceive to be the nature of the local audience - and about which I could of course be completely wrong. That said - so castigate me if you will - I found the play far funnier than I recall the film being, irrespective of the final scene, and the reason I didn't originally plan to see this was largely because my vague memory of the film was that it was unremittingly grim and hopeless, whereas the female characters in the stage production came across as spirited and determined to get on with their lives whatever their circumstances. But maybe that's my southerner's stereotypical interpretation of them as "plucky northerners" - how would I know?! It's interesting that this is your interpretation, because it's the polar opposite of most people's view of the film and the play. The film was done in a light-hearted, broad style. It was designed to show people having fun and living life - not a handwringing "oh, isn't it grim Up North" mentality. Although much of the dialogue and scenes are almost identical to the original play, the play has a few more political references and less upbeat ending . |
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jan 31, 2018 17:47:47 GMT
It was a thin house yesterday, but there were a few sniggers and one or two real laughs, fortunately. I'm very glad I saw it in Bolton, in a more or less full house, among an audience who didn't subconsciously look down on the play's working-class northern characters and setting. (It's twenty years since I lived in London, but I'm back there quite regularly and see a fair amount of theatre there. London audiences have some defining character quirks, and that, unfortunately, is one of them.) Totally. And as a very "non-typical" London audience member raised at the Q and A that night: "Are we laughing at them, or with them?..." i.e. the characters... |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jan 31, 2018 18:05:42 GMT
I'm very glad I saw it in Bolton, in a more or less full house, among an audience who didn't subconsciously look down on the play's working-class northern characters and setting. (It's twenty years since I lived in London, but I'm back there quite regularly and see a fair amount of theatre there. London audiences have some defining character quirks, and that, unfortunately, is one of them.) Totally. And as a very "non-typical" London audience member raised at the Q and A that night: "Are we laughing at them, or with them?..." i.e. the characters... At the Octagon, it was very definitely with them. In Sloane Square, I wouldn't be so sure. What was the answer? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 19:08:22 GMT
Totally. And as a very "non-typical" London audience member raised at the Q and A that night: "Are we laughing at them, or with them?..." i.e. the characters... At the Octagon, it was very definitely with them. In Sloane Square, I wouldn't be so sure. What was the answer? Actually, on the night I saw this I would say that the audience (which I hastily labelled "snooty" in another post) seemed to be on the side of the girls, so were laughing with them. Dunbar's writing is so good that you can't do otherwise, can you? |
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Feb 8, 2018 18:59:30 GMT
Totally. And as a very "non-typical" London audience member raised at the Q and A that night: "Are we laughing at them, or with them?..." i.e. the characters... At the Octagon, it was very definitely with them. In Sloane Square, I wouldn't be so sure. What was the answer? Yes, I think laughing with them. And of course the director said "laughing with them". One woman in the audience said "middle class people don't seem to shout so loud when they communicate with each other"! Some other woman else said "how can anyone laugh at this?", which annoyed me very much. As the director said, Andrea was no fool and of course she put in lines and phrasing that was meant to be comical. I suppose its best described as a black comedy or comedy/drama in it's stage guise. The film much more a comedy, which the broadness in which it is performed. Only the Aslam domestic abuse subplot (which actually comes from "The Arbor" play) is certainly no laughing matter. |
|
