|
|
Post by crabtree on Sept 18, 2024 12:18:03 GMT
all this is a rather long way from a wood near athens.
|
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 18, 2024 13:02:51 GMT
all this is a rather long way from a wood near athens. To the wood we have gone but Athenian found we none. |
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 18, 2024 18:12:12 GMT
|
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Sept 18, 2024 18:21:57 GMT
I find it strange that none of the cast and creatives have spoken out about the REX's decision to cancel or to defend the director, unless there's some sort of NDA in place.
|
|
4,955 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Sept 18, 2024 18:28:06 GMT
There was a song which included lyrics about free Palestine in which audiences would be asked to participate? Seriously? The mind boggles at what that was about if true. The production sounds totally hideous on so many levels. How on earth does this concept fit into Dream ? #shoehorn |
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 18, 2024 19:28:27 GMT
I find it strange that none of the cast and creatives have spoken out about the REX's decision to cancel or to defend the director, unless there's some sort of NDA in place. It's only been a few days. But the articles all say that the actors/creative support the director. |
|
1,819 posts
|
Post by stevej678 on Sept 18, 2024 19:35:49 GMT
I find it strange that none of the cast and creatives have spoken out about the REX's decision to cancel or to defend the director, unless there's some sort of NDA in place. It's only been a few days. But the articles all say that the actors/creative support the director. This is such a sensitive subject though, would anyone in the company who disagreed with the director necessarily feel comfortable speaking up and expressing that view to other cast members or creatives? Particularly when the theatre management's concerns appear to have been received so badly. |
|
19,650 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 18, 2024 19:56:25 GMT
Given that all of their members have been paid, including the recalcitrant director, maybe they just feel the need to get involved to feel relevant. |
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 18, 2024 20:09:10 GMT
It's only been a few days. But the articles all say that the actors/creative support the director. This is such a sensitive subject though, would anyone in the company who disagreed with the director necessarily feel comfortable speaking up and expressing that view to other cast members or creatives? Particularly when the theatre management's concerns appear to have been received so badly. It's all anonymous at the moment though. Why would it be contentious to say it to one of the papers? If the exchange is censoring artists cos of 'pressure groups', that's something relevant for artists isn't it? |
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 18, 2024 20:09:54 GMT
Given that all of their members have been paid, including the recalcitrant director, maybe they just feel the need to get involved to feel relevant. Or they are speaking out against what they feel is censorship? |
|
19,650 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 18, 2024 20:18:56 GMT
Given that all of their members have been paid, including the recalcitrant director, maybe they just feel the need to get involved to feel relevant. Or they are speaking out against what they feel is censorship? I think if i was a member of Equity and I thought they were using my hard earned monthly contributions to try and control the programming at a regional theatre, I’d have a problem with that. |
|
|
|
Post by max on Sept 18, 2024 20:49:05 GMT
Why wouldn't people at a Manchester rave be into Trans Rights and 'Palestinian Freedom'*? They would - and if they hadn't thought them through much, they'd likely go along with it as the 'in thing' on a hedonistic summer night.
The play isn't much of a comedy at the best of times - perhaps 'fantasy play on dark themes of control' is more accurate; but I don't think this was marketed on the comedy vibe, so no slip up there.
If a compromise could have been struck where the audience were no longer encouraged to join in the song (if they ever were) then all else seems reasonable to me.
It perhaps would have been overly cautious (inviting outrage), but could an email have gone out to bookers restating the content?:
a Manchester rave, where the music pumps, drugs are present, and the politics are trans rights and references to a free palestine. If this doesn't sound like the production you were expecting you can have a refund...
*I put this in inverted commas, not because I don't agree with it, but because freedom in a two-state-solution Palestine under Hamas wouldn't look like the freedom Manchester ravers imagine. Shakespeare's play absolutely isn't the place to get into those complexities, and neither is a Manchester rave - but that doesn't mean it's not realistic to show its presence there. Some audience members may curl their lip at the naivety of the characters, but we often do that in drama, don't we? It becomes more confusing/problematic if you suspect the naivety is also that of the makers and they're using their platform to amplify it.
|
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 18, 2024 21:00:46 GMT
Or they are speaking out against what they feel is censorship? I think if i was a member of Equity and I thought they were using my hard earned monthly contributions to try and control the programming at a regional theatre, I’d have a problem with that. From Novemebr 2023 "Equity encourages any members who are worried about blacklisting or censorship to speak to their union for support and advice." |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Sept 18, 2024 21:25:54 GMT
Yes, Equity has a duty to look out for members facing the issues mentioned.
But it has zero role to play in calling for a ceasefire in any conflict or anything else on the global stage.
They are a trade union for workers in the performing arts in the UK. That is their role. Not making comments on international politics.
|
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 18, 2024 21:56:31 GMT
Yes, Equity has a duty to look out for members facing the issues mentioned. But it has zero role to play in calling for a ceasefire in any conflict or anything else on the global stage. They are a trade union for workers in the performing arts in the UK. That is their role. Not making comments on international politics. From the sounds of it, the production creatives had issues with censorship though. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Sept 18, 2024 22:11:54 GMT
What you perceive as censorship (with no concrete evidence that is in the public domain) could be equally viewed as a theatre expressing genuine concerns about elements of a production that they had not cleared and that they felt went beyond the boundaries of what had been outlined initially.
We simply don't know enough to draw any conclusions as to what actually went on in the days running up to the cancellation.
All we have is unattributed comments and lots of reading between the lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Sept 18, 2024 22:55:08 GMT
if we shadows have offended, think but this and all is mended...............
|
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 18, 2024 23:21:13 GMT
What you perceive as censorship (with no concrete evidence that is in the public domain) could be equally viewed as a theatre expressing genuine concerns about elements of a production that they had not cleared and that they felt went beyond the boundaries of what had been outlined initially. We simply don't know enough to draw any conclusions as to what actually went on in the days running up to the cancellation. All we have is unattributed comments and lots of reading between the lines. Whilst I agree we need more transparency, that's what equity is asking from the the theatre. Equity are looking at it as a censorship issue in line with what they said last year. If it isn't, then the exchange probably needs to out a proper statement out |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Sept 19, 2024 1:41:12 GMT
I wondered if the audience participation was the issue - while expressing a point of view is free speech, forcing others to is compelled speech. It made me think of the Soho Theatre comedian who, a few months ago, berated members of the audience for not being enthusiastic enough about the Palestinian Flag. www.theguardian.com/news/2024/feb/12/soho-theatre-apologises-after-comedian-abused-jewish-audience-memberBut, of course, it could be something entirely different and the theatre has suggested there were a combination of reasons (which given the disastrous financial and reputational hit I can't think they would have done lightly.) This was one person in the audience who then did all the media rounds after the event and was a former Israeli intelligence officer. I am not disputing what happened at that event because I was not there, but the comedian said it felt set-up in a podcast interview, and we then saw the same thing happen with Reginald D. Hunter more recently. And the person offended at RDH's show had previously been tweeting about the incident with Paul Currie. Both comedians had their subsequent shows cancelled. So I think we need to be very specific about how we talk about these incidents as they don't involve multiple audience members complaining. And also, brands and businesses have a right to have values and ethics. In fact, most people prefer them to have values and ethics when it comes to human rights (whether that's trans rights, or the rights of victims of massacres, etc), and given the trends we're seeing (actual hard marketing data) it actually benefits brands and businesses to do so. You're badly misrepresenting what happened, in a way that risks promoting antisemitic tropes (of the wily, manipulative Jew who is powerful enough to control the media). The Soho incident with Paul Currie involved three audience members, and more than one has spoken about it publicly. Has it been officially, reliably confirmed that Eitan is a "former Israeli intelligence officer"? I googled, and I can find no mention of this except on a very dubious "independent thought" website, and two tweets referencing that same website. (The website and both Twitter accounts are full of rantings about evil Zionists controlling the world.) Reginald D Hunter's racism upset and scared a lot of people, especially since he doubled down afterwards and spent weeks ranting on social media about 'The Jews', how wily and money grubbing 'The Jews' are (not one word about Israel, just 'The Jews'). He's also been RTing all kinds of terrifying stuff from American far right commentators, including people like Candace Owens. His Edinburgh show wasn't cancelled, the incident took place on 11th August and he kept performing right through till the end of Ed Fringe in the last week of August. Later, he had two regional gigs cancelled, both in Jewish areas, but he finished his Ed run and most of the gigs on his tour haven't been cancelled. And his online behaviour really has been abhorrent. RDH sent a tweet to the family of one of the murdered Hamas hostages saying, "I will see you and your kind ended, even if it costs me EVERYTHING." And another tweet saying (in a tweet that also referred to Jews as being Nazis): "I HATE these people and am committed to their destruction." He's also tweeted misogynistic and unpleasant sexually explicit images to women. So we can't know if the two gigs were cancelled because of the Edinburgh incident, or because of RDH's social media activity in the days and weeks following it. You can't tweet sexual images, harass the family of murdered Jews, send death threats to Jewish women, and imply you intend to see all Jewish people genocided, and not expect that people won't feel safe working with you. Actions have consequences. |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Sept 19, 2024 1:56:52 GMT
FWIW I've known both Stef and Suzanne for years (and know a few people involved with the show) and while clearly the Palestine&trans stuff was the sticking point, things are always more complex than one singular thing. Sometimes strong personalities clash. Sometimes there are unrealistic or clashing expectations or assumptions, that aren't because the creative team pulled a fast one on the venue. I've had terrible experiences of venues coming in late in rehearsals after ignoring us all throughout the creative process, and pitching a fit over some minor thing. Most creatives have had that experience. REM doesn't have the best reputation when it comes to supporting artists, and the change of AD model hasn't helped. There's a reason the Bruntwood prize winners can take years to get to the stage and sometimes don't at all.
Re: Equity. Recently Keir Starmer tweeted a generic statement of condolences for the victims and families of murdered Jews, and an elected Equity deputy quote tweeted it with a comment saying how despicable Keir was for making that tweet. Just for expressing condolences for murdered Jews. Some Jewish actors left Equity over that and some other incidents. I get the point about Equity asking for transparency but Equity aren't neutral here.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Sept 19, 2024 2:47:27 GMT
Reading a bit more about what Equity have been saying and it seems that they are playing a political game that goes beyond the remit they have to represent their members.
Freedom of expression should be protected but it does come with limits and it is certainly not carte blanche for a director to do whatever they want. Every venue has the right to decide what appears on their stages.
Equity mentions the term 'censorship' but does not make a direct link to recent events.They repeat terms like 'dignity' and 'integrity' many times but again put forward no evidence to demonstrate what happened to affect these things. This is all being spun.
The theatre does need to put out a clear statement so that the media narrative is not controlled by Equity and unnamed sources.
It is too easy these days to use buzzwords to try to manipulate reactions.
|
|
|
|
Post by blamerobots on Sept 19, 2024 8:48:25 GMT
Woomf. Unfortunately I think this issue will never be "clear."
I don't have much to say on the political aspect as I'm here to talk about shows I like and not much else. Art is allowed to be confrontational and abrasive and shout their opinion out. There is always a placr for this kind of work. Who cares if it fits or anything like that, directors always hold the liberty to decide what they want to put on. The arts are free for anything. That's your right as a creator.
But I get the feeling that this would've been a massive safeguarding issue if problem people come along, considering how it was not advertised properly nor were customers told in advance about the productions themes, so it's prime for rowdy people to clash about anything and everything. When you're paying money for shows you're also placing your trust in the venue by going into the building and sitting to watch the show. There's a logistical and administrative nightmare waiting.
Unfortunately any decision will be taken as a political thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by lemiz1862 on Sept 19, 2024 9:09:28 GMT
I think this is when Equity (pushed by vocal members of Equity leadership) making a political "statement" taking a side on the Israel/Gaza war in October 2023 becomes a huge problem. I can't take anything they say regarding any piece of art re: Israel or Palestine as nothing more than biased to their own political aims.
This is why the Writers Guild and other unions in the US declined to make political statements regarding the conflict. It really hurts their standing when they try to arbitrate situations like these.
|
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 19, 2024 9:29:53 GMT
I think this is when Equity (pushed by vocal members of Equity leadership) making a political "statement" taking a side on the Israel/Gaza war in October 2023 becomes a huge problem. I can't take anything they say regarding any piece of art re: Israel or Palestine as nothing more than biased to their own political aims. This is why the Writers Guild and other unions in the US declined to make political statements regarding the conflict. It really hurts their standing when they try to arbitrate situations like these. This is also why many former members of Equity refuse to have anything to do with it any more, when it ceased to be a proper union in favour of political grandstanding and soundbites. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Sept 19, 2024 9:45:01 GMT
Woomf. Unfortunately I think this issue will never be "clear." I don't have much to say on the political aspect as I'm here to talk about shows I like and not much else. Art is allowed to be confrontational and abrasive and shout their opinion out. There is always a placr for this kind of work. Who cares if it fits or anything like that, directors always hold the liberty to decide what they want to put on. The arts are free for anything. That's your right as a creator. It is your right as a creator but that is only fully true if you are self funding the project. However if you are employed by someone else then you are going to have to abide by the terms of your contract and the house rules. If you aren't willing to live and create within that framework, then you have to find other ways to make the points you wish to make. |
|
