1,478 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 27, 2018 17:46:09 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 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 14:41:39 GMT
I’m going to try for £12 day seats on Monday. Wish me luck!
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by callum on Mar 3, 2018 15:31:04 GMT
Saw this on Wednesday and didn't believe a single word of it. Very sixth form. Starts off as a stand-up comedy routine you wouldn't see on a cruise ship and ends with virtue-signalling lecture we've all heard a hundred times before. Can't abide by an independently-educated actress espousing the virtues of the working class. The final 15 minutes was not warranted for me, and made me dislike the play even more. Ultimately - a failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 15:33:29 GMT
Lovely acting
Awful play
Pathetically so
Not shocking
Didn’t tell me anything
Other than yet again how weak and desperate people are
To be in relationship
And they like learning the lesson the hard way
Utterly unbelievable and the writing was so cliched
|
|
4,974 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 4, 2018 0:29:35 GMT
Lovely acting Awful play Pathetically so Not shocking Didn’t tell me anything Other than yet again how weak and desperate people are To be in relationship And they like learning the lesson the hard way Utterly unbelievable and the writing was so cliched Parsley’s back. |
|
4,974 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 4, 2018 0:36:57 GMT
I saw this, this afternoon and really I am not a fan of one person plays, as they are very one dimensional and requires a lot of concentration on just one person, at least with two or more actors you can keep shifting your attention and this gives you pause. I didn’t also rate Ms Mulligan, who was far better in Skylight, that could be because of my earlier misgivings.
However at the end there is a coup de theatre with the stage design and lighting.
3 Stars
|
|
898 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Mar 4, 2018 14:08:42 GMT
Saw this on Wednesday and didn't believe a single word of it. Very sixth form. Starts off as a stand-up comedy routine you wouldn't see on a cruise ship and ends with virtue-signalling lecture we've all heard a hundred times before. Can't abide by an independently-educated actress espousing the virtues of the working class. The final 15 minutes was not warranted for me, and made me dislike the play even more. Ultimately - a failure. How odd that you should know where she went to school. Do you keep a list? Why is it relevant? |
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Mar 4, 2018 14:38:29 GMT
After seeing two one person plays recently this one and B*easts at the Bush, on reflection this is the weaker of the two.
Saw an early preview so little preconceived ideas and on reflection this influenced my initial opinion along with the performance and impressive set.
Having had time to ponder, this is one dimensional and does not add anything to the subject of Girls & Boys, one likes playing with guns, one likes playing with dolls. A simple extrapolation to the theme and as previously stated there is by definition no counterpoint which is necessary to understand the drives to commit such events which most, if not all of us could not countenance in any circumstances.
B*easts deserves the plaudits as it not only covers a currently unlikely scenario but tries to understand it from the protagonists viewpoint along with the societal influences that could lead to the scenario and Monica Dolan is mesmerising in a way I only thought Imelda Staunton could be.
|
|
3,558 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 4, 2018 14:55:56 GMT
I saw this, this afternoon and really I am not a fan of one person plays, as they are very one dimensional and requires a lot of concentration on just one person, at least with two or more actors you can keep shifting your attention and this gives you pause. I didn’t also rate Ms Mulligan, who was far better in Skylight, that could be because of my earlier misgivings. However at the end there is a coup de theatre with the stage design and lighting. 3 Stars Sorry you didn't enjoy it more, Phantom of London, but (and this isn't Schadenfreude) thank goodness someone else has at last spoken out against one-person plays, as I was castigated for daring to ask whether, with a cast of one, this even amounted to a play. I never planned to see this anyway but in principle, give me at least 3 or 4 people so that there is, as you say, some interaction and shift of focus. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 15:18:18 GMT
No one castigated anyone. You can prefer to avoid one-person plays all you want and no one will give even a single solitary hoot as that is what works for you and it does not affect anyone else. But please don't mistake our "I disagree that a play with only a single cast member doesn't even count as a play" for castigation.
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by callum on Mar 5, 2018 0:21:34 GMT
Saw this on Wednesday and didn't believe a single word of it. Very sixth form. Starts off as a stand-up comedy routine you wouldn't see on a cruise ship and ends with virtue-signalling lecture we've all heard a hundred times before. Can't abide by an independently-educated actress espousing the virtues of the working class. The final 15 minutes was not warranted for me, and made me dislike the play even more. Ultimately - a failure. How odd that you should know where she went to school. Do you keep a list? Why is it relevant? Wikipedia. And yes it is relevant when a fairly well-to-do actress puts on a working class accent and slags off the rich for having too much opportunity in the creative industries. In a play that wouldn’t have got off the ground if it wasn’t for her. The words ‘irony’ and ‘dead’ spring to mind... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 9:39:07 GMT
Managed to get two £12 seats for his tonight. I was 489 in the queue at 9.00 and got a message that all of the tickets were in baskets (can’t remember exact wording) at about 9.10 when I was 179 in the queue. Eventually I got to be first in the queue, same message about no tickets left. I refreshed a couple of times, went and read some of the Bad Behaviour thread, refreshed again and I got two tickets at 9.25. So I am rather delighted!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 9:43:52 GMT
Can't abide by an independently-educated actress espousing the virtues of the working class. The final 15 minutes was not warranted for me, and made me dislike the play even more. Ultimately - a failure. Hold on. Actors are only allowed to play the class they are? Or are working class people allowed to play posh people? Can straight people play gay people? Or are they only allowed to do it if they don’t espouse the virtues of same-sex relationships? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 9:46:17 GMT
How odd that you should know where she went to school. Do you keep a list? Why is it relevant? Wikipedia. And yes it is relevant when a fairly well-to-do actress puts on a working class accent and slags off the rich for having too much opportunity in the creative industries. In a play that wouldn’t have got off the ground if it wasn’t for her. The words ‘irony’ and ‘dead’ spring to mind... At some point in the past, I read an article explaining how Julian Fellowes went to do a talk at Carey Mulligan's school, and afterwards she wrote to him asking for advice on breaking into acting. He invited her to lunch, set her up with a casting agent, and she ended up in Pride And Prejudice. She's an extremely talented actor, and had other jobs in the period before her acting career really took off, and clearly gets credit for the determination to make her own luck, but can you imagine a kid from a working class background being able to connect so easily with a fairly influential bod like Julian Fellowes? It's the kind of story that I found hard to forget while watching her playing such a strongly working class character. I liked the play and thought she did a great job, but can you imagine how much more impactful it *could* have been? |
|
1,478 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 5, 2018 12:02:37 GMT
Can't abide by an independently-educated actress espousing the virtues of the working class. The final 15 minutes was not warranted for me, and made me dislike the play even more. Ultimately - a failure. Hold on. Actors are only allowed to play the class they are? Or are working class people allowed to play posh people? Can straight people play gay people? Or are they only allowed to do it if they don’t espouse the virtues of same-sex relationships? Agree. Judging Carey Mulligan's acting, by what school she went to, is not about Carey Mulligan or her acting, but about the psychodrama going on in the head of the audience member judging her. Carey Mulligan is one of the best actors I've seen, and she's great in this. Unlike Skylight, this play misses the mark, so it's not as exciting, but that's by the by. The world is unfair, and we should do all we can in every way, every day, to improve it, but holding a child's feet (eg posh background = bad, working class = good) to the fire, for the circumstances of her birth, is unhelpful. After all, great working class actors like Christopher Eccleston or David Morrissey are born able-bodied. By the same reasoning as above, you could say they don't deserve their success because they were born with limbs or with hearing, whereas others are not. Therefore they didn't really earn their success the way a non-hearing or non-able-bodied person would have to. This kind of reasoning is a cul de sac that demonises people, who are good at what they do, for circumstances they cannot help. Change, and progress, society every day in every way you can, I say, but don't blame the child. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by callum on Mar 5, 2018 17:03:52 GMT
Can't abide by an independently-educated actress espousing the virtues of the working class. The final 15 minutes was not warranted for me, and made me dislike the play even more. Ultimately - a failure. Hold on. Actors are only allowed to play the class they are? Or are working class people allowed to play posh people? Can straight people play gay people? Or are they only allowed to do it if they don’t espouse the virtues of same-sex relationships? It is not particularly comparable. As Baemax has put it very eloquently, Carey Mulligan is privileged and quite famous actor playing a non-privileged character that is quite forthright in an attacking how privileged people in the creative industries get a leg up over the working class. When one of the principal reasons that the play is being put on in the first place is because Carey Mulligan had access to Julian Fellowes. Working class actors are disappearing at an alarming rate. Mulligan, Cumberbatch, Hiddleston and Lily James etc are all obviously very capable actors, but in their generation I don't see any successors to the great working class actors Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Julie Walters and Helen Mirren. Yes, Ecclestone, Morrisey and Maxine Peake are all great but they are the exception to the rule. Representation matters - and the way that the Royal Court handled this didn't sit right with me. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 19:06:19 GMT
Hold on. Actors are only allowed to play the class they are? Or are working class people allowed to play posh people? Can straight people play gay people? Or are they only allowed to do it if they don’t espouse the virtues of same-sex relationships? It is not particularly comparable. As Baemax has put it very eloquently, Carey Mulligan is privileged and quite famous actor playing a non-privileged character that is quite forthright in an attacking how privileged people in the creative industries get a leg up over the working class. When one of the principal reasons that the play is being put on in the first place is because Carey Mulligan had access to Julian Fellowes. Working class actors are disappearing at an alarming rate. Mulligan, Cumberbatch, Hiddleston and Lily James etc are all obviously very capable actors, but in their generation I don't see any successors to the great working class actors Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Julie Walters and Helen Mirren. Yes, Ecclestone, Morrisey and Maxine Peake are all great but they are the exception to the rule. Representation matters - and the way that the Royal Court handled this didn't sit right with me. You're missing one key fact from your argument... Theatre and acting is a middle class interest for the most part and most working class people either have no interest in the World of theatre or the time to persue any interest anyway: I grew up on a council estate in one of London's poorest areas and am speaking from experience. Most actors in history haven't been working class and nothing has changed. There are acting schools such as the one in King's Cross with offer free or heavily discounted drama classes and these should be funded by the theatre and television industries and schemes like the Travelex at The National should be applauded and replicated by the main theatre groups, but they are only successful if there exists a demand (and the £15 tickets don't go to those with memberships at The National which cost the most). But what you can't do is bring a horse to water and make it drink. Plays like Amen Corner and Dara were meant to bring whole new audiences to The National but both were mostly attended almost exclusively by white middle class audiences. The same as The Barber Shop Chronicles. The same as the RSC's Hamlet will be in Hackney. Full of white audiences patting themselves on the back at their public display of embracing diversity. The theatre is for EVERYONE who wants to embrace it and every attempt possible - within reason - to make it accessible to all should be made but you can't waste time or money trying to attract people who aren't interested. Both are in short supply. For the record, by the way, and as someone from the same cultural background as the character portrayed by Mulligan, I have no issues with her - or anyone else perceived to be 'privileged' - playing someone from a similar background to me. The play emphasised the struggle we faced and continue to face and Mulligan gave a sympathetic, emotional performance full of empathy. What more could anyone ask for? Even the accent wasn't insulting to us either! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 19:16:33 GMT
Carey Mulligan is privileged and quite famous actor playing a non-privileged character that is quite forthright in an attacking how privileged people in the creative industries get a leg up over the working class. When one of the principal reasons that the play is being put on in the first place is because Carey Mulligan had access to Julian Fellowes. I imagine the play would have been put on regardless. The casting of Carey Mulligan - who I thought was excellent - will no doubt have helped it gain some extra prominence, but a new play by Dennis Kelly will be programmed on the merit of his name and the play itself. We are in danger of edging into a world where producers/casting directors/directors are going to have their choices severely limited by demands for actors to possess direct proximity to the role - and while representation, equality and equity are hugely important I strongly believe that there has to be scope for performers to operate outside of their class, whichever class that might be, and for creatives to be... err... creative in terms of their casting choices. I understand that there is a very real and valid point being made about creating more opportunities for working class actors (and writers/producers/directors/designers etc) but being critical of non-working class actors from taking on working class roles is - for me anyway - a movement away from equality and equity. Imagine if it went both ways, and working class actors were criticised for taking on non-working class roles? It would rightly be met with outrage. There absolutely needs to be more support for working class individuals in the creative arts, but I don't think criticism of non-working class individuals (or theatres that employ them) is the equitable way - and when it is the Royal Court, one of the chief champions of working class voices, it seems doubly unfair. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 21:32:39 GMT
and when it is the Royal Court, one of the chief champions of working class voices, it seems doubly unfair. That might have been a valid description thirty years ago but the Court has been the mirror of the middle classes for a long time now. I don’t begrudge anyone who is a good performer playing any role but who gets to do so goes back to education. Working class audiences and performer are there to be cultivated and attempts at doing so last century paid off, from the Workers’ Educational Association to the Open University, to improved access to further and higher education through student grants and so on. The arts are dying in state schools now, numbers are way down, teachers leaving are not being replaced. The EBACC is doing exactly what its opponents said it would. This is going to get much worse before it gets better. |
|
524 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Mar 6, 2018 9:35:57 GMT
It is not particularly comparable. As Baemax has put it very eloquently, Carey Mulligan is privileged and quite famous actor playing a non-privileged character that is quite forthright in an attacking how privileged people in the creative industries get a leg up over the working class. When one of the principal reasons that the play is being put on in the first place is because Carey Mulligan had access to Julian Fellowes. Working class actors are disappearing at an alarming rate. Mulligan, Cumberbatch, Hiddleston and Lily James etc are all obviously very capable actors, but in their generation I don't see any successors to the great working class actors Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Julie Walters and Helen Mirren. Yes, Ecclestone, Morrisey and Maxine Peake are all great but they are the exception to the rule. Representation matters - and the way that the Royal Court handled this didn't sit right with me. You're missing one key fact from your argument... Theatre and acting is a middle class interest for the most part and most working class people either have no interest in the World of theatre or the time to persue any interest anyway: I grew up on a council estate in one of London's poorest areas and am speaking from experience. Most actors in history haven't been working class and nothing has changed. There are acting schools such as the one in King's Cross with offer free or heavily discounted drama classes and these should be funded by the theatre and television industries and schemes like the Travelex at The National should be applauded and replicated by the main theatre groups, but they are only successful if there exists a demand (and the £15 tickets don't go to those with memberships at The National which cost the most). But what you can't do is bring a horse to water and make it drink. Plays like Amen Corner and Dara were meant to bring whole new audiences to The National but both were mostly attended almost exclusively by white middle class audiences. The same as The Barber Shop Chronicles. The same as the RSC's Hamlet will be in Hackney. Full of white audiences patting themselves on the back at their public display of embracing diversity. The theatre is for EVERYONE who wants to embrace it and every attempt possible - within reason - to make it accessible to all should be made but you can't waste time or money trying to attract people who aren't interested. Both are in short supply. For the record, by the way, and as someone from the same cultural background as the character portrayed by Mulligan, I have no issues with her - or anyone else perceived to be 'privileged' - playing someone from a similar background to me. The play emphasised the struggle we faced and continue to face and Mulligan gave a sympathetic, emotional performance full of empathy. What more could anyone ask for? Even the accent wasn't insulting to us either! So no working class people attend the theatre, and non-working class people only attend the type of plays you've mentioned in order to put on a 'public display of embracing diversity.' I'm curious - would you rather these plays were playing to empty theatres, or that they were never commissioned in the first place? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 10:59:13 GMT
You're missing one key fact from your argument... Theatre and acting is a middle class interest for the most part and most working class people either have no interest in the World of theatre or the time to persue any interest anyway: I grew up on a council estate in one of London's poorest areas and am speaking from experience. Most actors in history haven't been working class and nothing has changed. There are acting schools such as the one in King's Cross with offer free or heavily discounted drama classes and these should be funded by the theatre and television industries and schemes like the Travelex at The National should be applauded and replicated by the main theatre groups, but they are only successful if there exists a demand (and the £15 tickets don't go to those with memberships at The National which cost the most). But what you can't do is bring a horse to water and make it drink. Plays like Amen Corner and Dara were meant to bring whole new audiences to The National but both were mostly attended almost exclusively by white middle class audiences. The same as The Barber Shop Chronicles. The same as the RSC's Hamlet will be in Hackney. Full of white audiences patting themselves on the back at their public display of embracing diversity. The theatre is for EVERYONE who wants to embrace it and every attempt possible - within reason - to make it accessible to all should be made but you can't waste time or money trying to attract people who aren't interested. Both are in short supply. For the record, by the way, and as someone from the same cultural background as the character portrayed by Mulligan, I have no issues with her - or anyone else perceived to be 'privileged' - playing someone from a similar background to me. The play emphasised the struggle we faced and continue to face and Mulligan gave a sympathetic, emotional performance full of empathy. What more could anyone ask for? Even the accent wasn't insulting to us either! So no working class people attend the theatre, and non-working class people only attend the type of plays you've mentioned in order to put on a 'public display of embracing diversity.' I'm curious - would you rather these plays were playing to empty theatres, or that they were never commissioned in the first place? "So no working class people attend the theatre" - I never said that. I said, and you can re-read my post if you like, that for the most part Theatre is a mostly Middle-class interest.
"non-working class people only attend the type of plays you've mentioned in order to put on a 'public display of embracing diversity" - Not all, no. But if you don't think that an amount of left-leaning people go to such plays simply to put on a public display of 'embracing diversity' then I think you are a bit naïve.
"would you rather these plays were playing to empty theatres" - I didn't say that either. I did, and you can re-read what I said, say that these plays are produced and staged in a bid to attract new audiences but yet simply attract, for the most part, the same audiences.
"or that they were never commissioned in the first place" - Again, something I never suggested or said. If a play sells well it has been a success regardless of who is sitting in the audience. All I said was that you can't bring a horse to water and make it drink. How much money or time do you think theatres have to be continuously trying to attract people who aren't interested? I do find it a bit arrogant that some people seem to be demanding that other social groups like Theatre and that theatres should do everything to attract them when, perhaps, there isn't that much demand in those communities. Most working class people I know - and growing up where I did means I know a lot - prefer TV and Cinema, most Black people I know are the same. Should we be helping those within those communities who like Theatre by making it more accessible through cheaper tickets and by supporting schools like The Poor School? Absolutely. But if people aren't interested, they aren't interested.
Whether you like it or not, whether you're willing to accept it or not, whether you're willing to admit it or not, the truth is that theatre is almost an exclusively white, middle-class pastime. It always has been, always will be and absolutely nothing is going to change that.
So we're left with two options, we can either accept fact or frustrate ourselves trying to achieve something that will never happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 11:29:06 GMT
I know what you're saying @wrighty. But it's highly noticeable that audiences are usually far more diverse, younger, working class, etc when the topic is relevant to them and their experience. So if theatre audiences are usually white and middle class, it points to the fact that most theatre is made to be relevant to the white and middle class - not that other people aren't interested in live theatre. In fact, the ubiquity of theatrical-type storytelling in all cultures and all ages points exactly the opposite way.
Disclaimer - I am white and middle class and I rather like white, middle class theatre so not saying there isn't a place for that!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 11:46:14 GMT
I know what you're saying @wrighty . But it's highly noticeable that audiences are usually far more diverse, younger, working class, etc when the topic is relevant to them and their experience. So if theatre audiences are usually white and middle class, it points to the fact that most theatre is made to be relevant to the white and middle class - not that other people aren't interested in live theatre. In fact, the ubiquity of theatrical-type storytelling in all cultures and all ages points exactly the opposite way. Disclaimer - I am white and middle class and I rather like white, middle class theatre so not saying there isn't a place for that! "it's highly noticeable that audiences are usually far more diverse, younger, working class, etc when the topic is relevant to them"
I'm not sure I would agree entirely.
Plays like Amen Corner, Dara, The Barber Shop Chronicles and One Night in Miami - at least when I went to see them - did have more non-white faces in the crowd than normal but it was still a scattering.
When I went to see Port I didn't hear many more additional accents similar to my own than normal in the foyer of The National.
Has the Globe - under Emma Rice - been more successful? Absolutely, no doubt about it but isn't ironic that many of my friends who were Globe regulars ended up boycotting the theatre not because of content - as many people did - but because these new audiences simply didn't know how to behave in a theatre? Also, will these new audiences be back during terry's reign?.
We shouldn't feel embarrassed or ashamed that Theatre is a white, middle-class pastime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 12:05:06 GMT
Both of these remind me of telling my Indian friends about "Behind The Beautiful Forevers" at the National. One of them had grown up in Mumbai and was fascinated... well, guess what... they couldn't get tickets because they didn't know the system and the play was pretty much sold out to those who do know how to get tickets. It's an absolute fact (and I know from those who find my website) that theatre and how to get tickets is a horrible mystery to most, and getting worse as dynamic pricing and multiple web options come in. That, frankly, is as big a barrier as anything else, I think. The biggest problem is the fact that National members at ALL levels can buy £15 tickets in the pre sale period. If you're spending £500 on a membership at a theatre you should be barred from buying the cheapest seats. But that said, we live in a fluid society where being middle class does not automatically equate to being white. Why are we struggling to attract the non white middle class to theatres? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 12:54:20 GMT
I'm not sure I would agree entirely.
Plays like Amen Corner, Dara, The Barber Shop Chronicles and One Night in Miami - at least when I went to see them - did have more non-white faces in the crowd than normal but it was still a scattering.
When I went to see Port I didn't hear many more additional accents similar to my own than normal in the foyer of The National.
Has the Globe - under Emma Rice - been more successful? Absolutely, no doubt about it but isn't ironic that many of my friends who were Globe regulars ended up boycotting the theatre not because of content - as many people did - but because these new audiences simply didn't know how to behave in a theatre? Also, will these new audiences be back during terry's reign?.
We shouldn't feel embarrassed or ashamed that Theatre is a white, middle-class pastime.
It's an interesting discussion but I think the venue is a more important factor than the nature of the production. Stratford East, for example, a beacon of working class culture when Littlewood was there and which retains vestiges of that. In the eighties Hull Truck was absolutely playing to a more working class local audience with Godber leading it.
I'm not as convinced of the impossibility of having a less middle class theatre than you appear to be, it requires good venues, people from within the community that they wish to seek out, plays being written for them and performers who can play the characters within those plays. It is done well at times in some areas but there's no coherent vision for the country as a whole.
Regarding the £15 seats at the National it is completely ridiculous that they are open to large figure donors before anyone else. That, at the very least, needs to change.
|
|
