Ear for eye

[crowblack]

I saw this on Saturday, and thought the first part was excellent. The second part was dramatically more mainstream and while interesting, I disagreed with many of her points. I think hell will freeze over before someone like Trump calls a white guy a terrorist, but when I was a kid the default image of a terrorist was a white guy in a balaclava (though those same white guys were sometimes regarded as heroic in the USA). The final part of the third section - well, I've been mulling it over a lot, and wondering what point she was making with the device of putting 18thc Jamaican slavery laws in the mouths of a diverse - but all white British - group of modern, 21st C British people. That we (I'm white British too) are all somehow still responsible / to blame for this? Now? Even children? Just because we're white? Does dtg know much about the laws as they applied to British people of the working/poor/female/gay/disabled classes at the time - say, if we were to time-travel this same group of readers back to the 1700s? No, it wasn't as horrific as enslavement but it was still brutal - the Bloody Code, 220 mostly petty offences carrying the death penalty, men hanged for consensual gay sex as late as 1835, the 'changeling' defence for murdering a woman used successfully as late as 1895 etc..

[Deleted]

As a black woman

Who is so arrogant she usually
Always directs her own “plays”

And as she mainly works with black
Actors

The mainstream white press

Are not in any position
To criticise her work without fear of a backlash

However self indulgent and badly
Written it might be

She has a massive chip
On her shoulder

And it’s a shame she insists on hitting you over the head with it

In such a blatant and coarse way

I used to love her work

But this “play”
Shows how simplistic and bitter
She really is

The piece presents nothing new or ground breaking

Any message it thinks it has

Is made so badly and repeated to the point of boredom

And as a piece of writing it goes nowhere

[crowblack]

I don't think it's arrogant to want to direct your own plays, and this was done very well. It's the first piece of hers I've seen and I thought the first part was really strong, though the second part a bit Pinterish (and I'm not a Pinter fan).

I do think there's a case that some may feel cautious about engaging with / criticising some of her arguments, especially in an era when racism is now loud and overt. I hesitated for a couple of days before putting my thoughts about it in writing because I don't want my comments to be pounced on, but I've mulled that last section over and I really don't see any other way of interpreting it, and in the current era I think if she's saying all white people are still part of the problem, that isn't a just or helpful argument - it's just more division when what's needed is the opposite.

Bw, looking at reviews I'm struck - as I was with the Peterloo film reviews - by how ignorant so many people seem to be about the oppressive nature of society in general in the 18th/19thc. 

[Deleted]

Can someone explain to me the thinking behind her refusal to use initial capitals? I am genuinely interested. And what does the title “Ear for Eye” refer to - or does that become clear when you see the play?

[NeilVHughes]

Believe it is to differentiate what you hear from what you see, we are primarily visual and your expectations are determined from your first visual impression which is difficult to overrule when you finally interact with the person.

In this instance being black is dominant, eye for ear.

Not sure why they are not capitalised, might be to give equal validity for both.

[Deleted]

Nov 13, 2018 18:51:22 GMT NeilVHughes said:

Believe it is to differentiate what you hear from what you see, we are primarily visual and your expectations are determined from your first visual impression which is difficult to overrule when you finally interact with the person.

In this instance being black is dominant, eye for ear.

Not sure why they are not capitalised, might be to give equal validity for both.

Thanks. I should have been clearer: what is the thinking behind the refusal of initial capitals in her name. Still not sure I understand what ear for eye means but it may become clear when I see the play.

[foxa]

I don't know for sure why debbie tucker green doesn't capitalise her name. I sort of assumed it was in reference to writers like bell hooks (http://www.bellhooksinstitute.com/), black feminist writers who break the rules of language.

[Deleted]

Thanks Foxa. Just googled why bell hooks is lower case and discovered that it is to shift focus from her name and onto her ideas. In my opinion the absence of initial capitals does nothing of the sort. In fact it makes you ask questions about the name - as I just did. I have reservations about hooks’ work (controversial I know). Although I admire her I dislike the way she publicly calls out writers like Terry McMillan for not being political enough.

[Deleted]

Nov 13, 2018 18:33:47 GMT @cleoskryker said:

Can someone explain to me the thinking behind her refusal to use initial capitals? I am genuinely interested. And what does the title “Ear for Eye” refer to - or does that become clear when you see the play?

Because she thinks it is different

And interesting

Or because she knows she has nothing to really say

And her name is not worthy of capitals

🤣🤣

[duncan]

41 - Ear for eye - Royal Court

A show split into three distinct sections, first off we get the UK and US perspectives of similar events - not annoying the police, taking part in a demonstration, being arrested for no reason - and then the second section sees an older white male and a youngish black female in a discussion (argument?) following a mass shooting and then in the final section we are read laws from the UK and US that discriminated against the black populations of the time.

The first section suffers from the repetition of the concept, its essentially the same three stories told twice but with subtle differences to highlight the differences between the UK and the US - which rolls along, its the weakest part of the play for me.

The second part of this show is outstanding, the white man being condescending and borderline racist as he refuses to listen and continually interrupts the points that are trying to be made - especially when they contradict his weltanschauung. Its a section that soars based on two remarkable performances on a revolving and almost bare set. We're drip fed the information about what has happened and its wonderful part that could easily be pulled out and stand on its own.

There were a couple of remarkable audience pops in relation to what was being said, an audience it has to be said that was a virtual sell out and which had everybody enthralled - no one left, no creaking seats. This was something different, something new, something that the tedious traditionalists wont have liked.

The third part is a video, and I have to admit to utterly hating video in theatre shows - SHOW me on the stage, if I want to see a film I'll go to the cinema. Despite that the content is horrifying as we hear anti-black laws from US as late as the 1950s and 60s read out to upsetting gasps from the crowd and then we switch to the reading of UK slave laws. Nasty nasty stuff.

There are some issues, the actors hanging around on stage in Part 1 makes it look like they have lost the wings and none of them really stand out as putting in a stellar performance. Part 2 removes the chorus and hits home with 2 beautifully crafted characterisations and as noted its the main selling point of this piece.

Overall its an enthralling 140 minutes straight through, no watch looking or bum shuffling on show here - an audience that was mainly held captive in the palms of the hand of the performers.

8/10

[duncan]

Nov 13, 2018 11:27:24 GMT @parsley said:

As a black woman

Who is so arrogant she usually
Always directs her own “plays”

And as she mainly works with black
Actors

The mainstream white press

Are not in any position
To criticise her work without fear of a backlash

However self indulgent and badly
Written it might be

She has a massive chip
On her shoulder

And it’s a shame she insists on hitting you over the head with it

In such a blatant and coarse way

I used to love her work

But this “play”
Shows how simplistic and bitter
She really is

The piece presents nothing new or ground breaking

Any message it thinks it has

Is made so badly and repeated to the point of boredom

And as a piece of writing it goes nowhere

It goes plenty of places, I suspect those with views that this piece is clearly against wont be able to see them. The only bitterness on show will be from the unreconstructed who still think the white man is king. Times have changed, maybe you should as well.