524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 11:35:47 GMT
As I haven't seen the production, I can't comment. ! Only those who have attended the cancelled production can comment on the cancellation of a production that they can no longer attend... due to its cancellation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 11:38:51 GMT
The director (and Stafford Clark was the original director of this revival, then co-director) is the lens through which a play is seen. The same play directed at the present time by, say, Marianne Elliot, would have a different dynamic than one directed by Stafford Clark. It is not the writer who is complicit but the director.
I'm struggling to understand why people think this is an attack on Dunbar and her play, it is not. If it is directed by an acknowledged sex pest, however, and it become something less healthy. There are two threads running on this subject, confusingly, but on one of them I wondered why people are making one play directed by one director into something supposedly wider and all encompassing. Again, it isn't so why try and make it as such?
I just don't understand how you can claim that the following is not directed at the play: "the staging of this work, with its themes of grooming and abuses of power on young women, on that same stage now feels highly conflictual." That is a reference to the TEXT, not the director. Unfortunately we cannot just throw aside the fact that the play itself has been cancelled, that - along with the above quote - is a huge statement to make on the play itself and it doesn't sit right for me. That refers to the staging of the text not the text itself, it's a clear difference (although I imagine that the distinction between text and staging isn't that widely understood). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 11:47:04 GMT
Only those who have attended the cancelled production can comment on the cancellation of a production that they can no longer attend... due to its cancellation. As you must know, the production hasn't been cancelled - just its presentation at a single one of its fourteen tour venues, for reasons which have proved difficult for some to fully grasp. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 11:55:42 GMT
I just don't understand how you can claim that the following is not directed at the play: "the staging of this work, with its themes of grooming and abuses of power on young women, on that same stage now feels highly conflictual." That is a reference to the TEXT, not the director. Unfortunately we cannot just throw aside the fact that the play itself has been cancelled, that - along with the above quote - is a huge statement to make on the play itself and it doesn't sit right for me. That refers to the staging of the text not the text itself, it's a clear difference (although I imagine that the distinction between text and staging isn't that widely understood). I don't think it does only refer to the staging - it's not a clear difference at all - and to say that I think that because this kind of thing 'isn't that widely understood' feels like a cop out. I'm baffled that anyone could argue that the text doesn't contribute to a play's themes, that doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, I can understand that many people would feel upset that a production that seems to have MSC's stamp on it would be performed on the same stage as the testimonies, it must have been an impossibly tough decision. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 11:56:33 GMT
Only those who have attended the cancelled production can comment on the cancellation of a production that they can no longer attend... due to its cancellation. As you must know, the production hasn't been cancelled - just its presentation at a single one of its fourteen tour venues, for reasons which have proved difficult for some to fully grasp. ok. if that makes you feel better. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 12:05:15 GMT
That refers to the staging of the text not the text itself, it's a clear difference (although I imagine that the distinction between text and staging isn't that widely understood). I don't think it does only refer to the staging - it's not a clear difference at all - and to say that I think that because this kind of thing 'isn't that widely understood' feels like a cop out. I'm baffled that anyone could argue that the text doesn't contribute to a play's themes, that doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, I can understand that many people would feel upset that a production that seems to have MSC's stamp on it would be performed on the same stage as the testimonies, it must have been an impossibly tough decision. It really can't be read in any other way than it being about the staging (I presume the later tweet was because some others also didn't appear to understand that).
'"the staging of this work.....on that same stage now feels highly conflictual."
Nothing at all about the play itself, neither should there be.
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 12:18:34 GMT
'"the staging of this work.....on that same stage now feels highly conflictual."
If that's how the statement was worded, we'd be having a different conversation. But as we both know, you've left out a very important part in the middle there. An interesting way to back up your own point, taking certain parts in isolation. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it was just a badly worded statement. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 12:25:56 GMT
I just don't understand how you can claim that the following is not directed at the play: "the staging of this work, with its themes of grooming and abuses of power on young women, on that same stage now feels highly conflictual." That is a reference to the TEXT, not the director. Unfortunately we cannot just throw aside the fact that the play itself has been cancelled, that - along with the above quote - is a huge statement to make on the play itself and it doesn't sit right for me. That refers to the staging of the text not the text itself, it's a clear difference (although I imagine that the distinction between text and staging isn't that widely understood). Cardinal, I honestly think that you have misinterpreted the meaning of "staging" in the context of the statement. It has nothing to do with the production vs. text etc (after all it was directed by a female). In the context of the statement "staging" simply means the appearance of the play on the stage of the Royal Court, so the statement absolutely refers to the play's content. They should have had the courage to present Dunbar's work and to find a way to separate it from MS-C's misdemeanours. And for those who think that this is just a simple matter I beg to differ. There are so few plays by women presented on the British stages these days (although I must say that the RC is one of the theatre's that has upheld the tradition established by none other than MS-C of gender parity) that to cancel a work is a serious matter. |
|
2,480 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 14, 2017 13:03:26 GMT
Stafford Clark co directed this i just read.
cancellation justified IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 13:04:19 GMT
'"the staging of this work.....on that same stage now feels highly conflictual."
If that's how the statement was worded, we'd be having a different conversation. But as we both know, you've left out a very important part in the middle there. An interesting way to back up your own point, taking certain parts in isolation. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it was just a badly worded statement. It's not the subordinate clause that creates the intent, it's the main clause, which is why I took it out and, lo and behold, you agree that the actual intent was not what you previously thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 13:18:13 GMT
That refers to the staging of the text not the text itself, it's a clear difference (although I imagine that the distinction between text and staging isn't that widely understood). Cardinal, I honestly think that you have misinterpreted the meaning of "staging" in the context of the statement. It has nothing to do with the production vs. text etc (after all it was directed by a female). In the context of the statement "staging" simply means the appearance of the play on the stage of the Royal Court, so the statement absolutely refers to the play's content. They should have had the courage to present Dunbar's work and to find a way to separate it from MS-C's misdemeanours. And for those who think that this is just a simple matter I beg to differ. There are so few plays by women presented on the British stages these days (although I must say that the RC is one of the theatre's that has upheld the tradition established by none other than MS-C of gender parity) that to cancel a work is a serious matter.If this was a lay person then maybe that is what they might think it meant but they are people running a theatre and know exactly that the term means! Stafford Clark was the original director and started off directing the revival. Have ETT or someone put it on with a different director and the problem disappears, it's nothing wider than the confluence of director, play and venue, no big attempt to silence female or working class writers, both things being close to my heart (through upbringing and career) and ones that I am very keen on promoting.
I don't know why their words are being twisted to make it into a wider thing than it is, if anyone thinks they were blaming Dunbar for her play then they haven't really been paying attention!
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 13:18:45 GMT
If that's how the statement was worded, we'd be having a different conversation. But as we both know, you've left out a very important part in the middle there. An interesting way to back up your own point, taking certain parts in isolation. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it was just a badly worded statement. It's not the subordinate clause that creates the intent, it's the main clause, which is why I took it out and, lo and behold, you agree that the actual intent was not what you previously thought. Oh giver of wisdom.  Not what I meant but never mind, going round in circles here. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 13:20:23 GMT
If this was a lay person then maybe that is what they might think it meant but they are people running a theatre and know exactly that the term means! Stafford Clark was the original director and started off directing the revival. Have ETT or someone put it on with a different director and the problem disappears, it's nothing wider than the confluence of director, play and venue, no big attempt to silence female or working class writers, both things being close to my heart (through upbringing and career) and ones that I am very keen on promoting.
I don't know why their words are being twisted to make it into a wider thing than it is, if anyone thinks they were blaming Dunbar for her play then they haven't really been paying attention!
Intent and result being two different things. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 13:28:36 GMT
If this was a lay person then maybe that is what they might think it meant but they are people running a theatre and know exactly that the term means! Stafford Clark was the original director and started off directing the revival. Have ETT or someone put it on with a different director and the problem disappears, it's nothing wider than the confluence of director, play and venue, no big attempt to silence female or working class writers, both things being close to my heart (through upbringing and career) and ones that I am very keen on promoting.
I don't know why their words are being twisted to make it into a wider thing than it is, if anyone thinks they were blaming Dunbar for her play then they haven't really been paying attention!
Intent and result being two different things. One play by one writer in one theatre. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 13:32:32 GMT
Intent and result being two different things. One play by one writer in one theatre. Yes. No one is pretending it's some sort of conspiracy. Do you not find this sort of thing complex then? You seem to be pretty cut and dry about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 13:41:14 GMT
One play by one writer in one theatre. Yes. No one is pretending it's some sort of conspiracy. Do you not find this sort of thing complex then? You seem to be pretty cut and dry about it. In this particular instance (and not extrapolating it into anything beyond what it is), yes, it is clear. As for where anger should be aimed I think there are thousands of organisations that are more deserving of people's ire than the Royal Court. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 13:48:01 GMT
Yes. No one is pretending it's some sort of conspiracy. Do you not find this sort of thing complex then? You seem to be pretty cut and dry about it. In this particular instance (and not extrapolating it into anything beyond what it is), yes, it is clear. As for where anger should be aimed I think there are thousands of organisations that are more deserving of people's ire than the Royal Court. I'm certainly not angry about it, it's too urgent and complex an issue, and as I've said I think the RC have been brave in putting themselves forward in addressing this. I've acknowledged that this must have been an excruciatingly difficult decision for them. I just think it's more complicated than you have admitted when a play has actually been cancelled. However you want to twist it, that is a big statement. We can get technical about wording all we like, we can talk about how they are continuing to support the rest of the tour (which I think muddies their stance), and how this is only 1 play in 1 theatre etc etc, but I think you're in denial if you're saying it doesn't send a message about the play itself, which in my opinion is unfortunate. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 13:55:11 GMT
In this particular instance (and not extrapolating it into anything beyond what it is), yes, it is clear. As for where anger should be aimed I think there are thousands of organisations that are more deserving of people's ire than the Royal Court. I'm certainly not angry about it, it's too urgent and complex an issue, and as I've said I think the RC have been brave in putting themselves forward in addressing this. I've acknowledged that this must have been an excruciatingly difficult decision for them. I just think it's more complicated than you have admitted when a play has actually been cancelled. However you want to twist it, that is a big statement. We can get technical about wording all we like, we can talk about how they are continuing to support the rest of the tour, and how this is only 1 play in 1 theatre etc etc, but I think you're in denial if you're saying it doesn't send a message about the play itself, which in my opinion is unfortunate. There is an issue as to how much Stafford Clark made it into the play that it is, he himself says that the text is hers but how much did he suggest? A neophyte writer alongside a famous director starts with an imbalance in the power relationship that raises questions, especially when that director turns out to have tried to take advantage of that power at other times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 13:57:45 GMT
It’s a shame
They can’t run somewhere else
In London
Park or hampstead etc
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 13:59:02 GMT
I've said I think the RC have been brave in putting themselves forward in addressing this. I've acknowledged that this must have been an excruciatingly difficult decision for them. It's a joint statement by the Royal Court and Out of Joint. I just think it's more complicated than you have admitted when a play has actually been cancelled. The play hasn't been cancelled. IT's been agreed not to present it in this one venue. I think you're in denial if you're saying it doesn't send a message about the play itself, which in my opinion is unfortunate. Then, why keep repeating that you've picked up this message, whilst acknowledging that it's not what was meant? I now withdraw from this fruitless correspondence. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 14:02:53 GMT
I'm certainly not angry about it, it's too urgent and complex an issue, and as I've said I think the RC have been brave in putting themselves forward in addressing this. I've acknowledged that this must have been an excruciatingly difficult decision for them. I just think it's more complicated than you have admitted when a play has actually been cancelled. However you want to twist it, that is a big statement. We can get technical about wording all we like, we can talk about how they are continuing to support the rest of the tour, and how this is only 1 play in 1 theatre etc etc, but I think you're in denial if you're saying it doesn't send a message about the play itself, which in my opinion is unfortunate. There is an issue as to how much Stafford Clark made it into the play that it is, he himself says that the text is hers but how much did he suggest? A neophyte writer alongside a famous director starts with an imbalance in the power relationship that raises questions, especially when that director turns out to have tried to take advantage of that power at other times.
Yes, a very fair point and that would of course change everything. There's a real possibility that something has come to light VERY recently regarding the origins of this specific play or even this specific production of the play. However that is all pure speculation. Of course, they're under no obligation to divulge that information if it's true, and there may be a legal reason why they cannot, as others have suggested, but still, after all that, we've ended up with a play being cancelled and the only explanation, I think we can all agree, is vague at best. Most will only see that a play has been rejected, see that the themes are mentioned in the press release, and draw their own conclusions. And that's unfortunate. That's my main point really. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 14:03:46 GMT
I've said I think the RC have been brave in putting themselves forward in addressing this. I've acknowledged that this must have been an excruciatingly difficult decision for them. It's a joint statement by the Royal Court and Out of Joint. I just think it's more complicated than you have admitted when a play has actually been cancelled. The play hasn't been cancelled. IT's been agreed not to present it in this one venue. I think you're in denial if you're saying it doesn't send a message about the play itself, which in my opinion is unfortunate. Then, why keep repeating that you've picked up this message, whilst acknowledging that it's not what was meant? I now withdraw from this fruitless correspondence. Please don't go |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 14:05:59 GMT
Shall we stage our own version
In London?
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Dec 14, 2017 14:08:09 GMT
The play hasn't been cancelled. IT's been agreed not to present it in this one venue. cancel ˈkans(ə)l verb 1. decide or announce that (a planned event) will not take place. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 15:18:14 GMT
|
|
