All in a Row Southwark Playhouse

[lou105]

Can't see a thread for this, and slightly nervous to start one, but it seems that this play has become controversial before it's even started (article in Evening Standard). A new play by Alex Oates, starring Simon Lipkin and Charlie Brooks, based on the author's experiences as a carer and centring on a boy who is described as "autistic, non-verbal, and occasionally violent". The controversy comes from the portrayal of the boy, which is done using a puppet. Critics say that this literally dehumanises,  whilst the producers say that realistically they couldn't have used a nonverbal autistic child (children, due to licensing requirements) in the role. The National Autistic Society have said that they were pleased to be consulted about the play and some of their comments have been taken on board but in the end they feel unable to support the play. I'd already booked to go to a preview before seeing any of this, so I guess I can form my own view in time, but I may feel under-qualified to express it here!

[Deleted]

Well, Cost Of Living had two disabled performers; the disabilities of the characters were more extreme than the disabilities of the actors, but the actors were still disabled. So if you can have a double-amputee playing a paraplegic character, and an actor with cerebral palsy playing an character also with cerebral palsy but less mobility, then why can't they find - for example - child actors with autism who aren't necessarily non-verbal but are certainly a better fit for the part than an incredibly creepy looking puppet? I bet there are some out there if the producers would just make the effort to look. It's also pretty depressing how an AWFUL lot of autistic people are taking time to explain just how this decision (and the way it's being talked about) is hurting and upsetting them only for the playwright to double-down on the decision. You'd think we'd by now be at the point where people could listen to an under-represented group when they speak up in order to represent themselves, but apparently the impulse is still to go on the defensive and refuse to accept that they could have anything to say worth listening to.

Anyway! Seeing as you've already booked and will be going, I'll be interested to hear what you think when you come out. I'm sure it's all been meant in good faith, but will it work as a piece of theatre, and will the wider conversation be acknowledge or ignored?

[perfectspy]

I’m seeing this on Saturday

[ensembleswings]

I too had already booked before seeing any of the comments regarding the child being a puppet. As someone who knows a fair few autistic people (including family members) I can see why many are upset and even outraged by the decision but I can also completely understand where the creatives are coming from and why they've made the decision they have. Still very much going to make use of the ticket and go and form my own opinion on it.

[Someone in a tree]

I'd be interested in seeing this and reading more about it.

I work in a social care team with adults who are diagnosed with a learning disability and so I can see why the puppet option was chosen but ouch.

[Someone in a tree]

Feb 10, 2019 19:55:21 GMT @baemax said:

Well, Cost Of Living had two disabled performers; the disabilities of the characters were more extreme than the disabilities of the actors, but the actors were still disabled. So if you can have a double-amputee playing a paraplegic character, and an actor with cerebral palsy playing an character also with cerebral palsy but less mobility, then why can't they find - for example - child actors with autism who aren't necessarily non-verbal but are certainly a better fit for the part than an incredibly creepy looking puppet? I bet there are some out there if the producers would just make the effort to look. It's also pretty depressing how an AWFUL lot of autistic people are taking time to explain just how this decision (and the way it's being talked about) is hurting and upsetting them only for the playwright to double-down on the decision. You'd think we'd by now be at the point where people could listen to an under-represented group when they speak up in order to represent themselves, but apparently the impulse is still to go on the defensive and refuse to accept that they could have anything to say worth listening to.

Anyway! Seeing as you've already booked and will be going, I'll be interested to hear what you think when you come out. I'm sure it's all been meant in good faith, but will it work as a piece of theatre, and will the wider conversation be acknowledge or ignored?

A physical disability is miles away from Autism either high or low functioning as it it affects the person cognitivly.

[asfound]

Feb 10, 2019 19:55:21 GMT @baemax said:

Well, Cost Of Living had two disabled performers; the disabilities of the characters were more extreme than the disabilities of the actors, but the actors were still disabled. So if you can have a double-amputee playing a paraplegic character, and an actor with cerebral palsy playing an character also with cerebral palsy but less mobility, then why can't they find - for example - child actors with autism who aren't necessarily non-verbal but are certainly a better fit for the part than an incredibly creepy looking puppet?

The character is described as severely autistic and non-verbal, as well as violent. As somebody who has worked with people across the spectrum I assure your suggestion is not a good idea unless you're talking about somebody with such a mild variant e.g. Asperger's that it is actually closer to the general population than the character described. In which case, what's the point?

Also, who is to say using the puppet isn't an interesting and deliberate creative choice that might be a commentary in itself? Is it dehumanising or is it a statement on dehumanisation? This kind of mindless outrage can kill creative vision, I hope the director doesn't end up backing down.

[timothyd]

Being outraged before you have had the chance to see the play and or read reviews or comment is something that I dont understand. You cant form a well informed opinion if you only read a blurb and see a cast photo with a puppet.

The creators then invited people to watch it and people declined because they didnt want to waste time and money. So that whole discussion wont get anywhere.

Curious to read all your opinions. Sounds like an interesting play.

[Steve]

I already booked to see this in a couple of weeks on the strength of liking Oates' previous play "Silk Road."

I don't agree that it's necessarily dehumanising for a human being to be depicted by a puppet, any more than it is for a human being to be depicted by a photograph, or a drawing, or by words, or by any other medium that isn't an actual human being.

We all know that theatre is an act of the imagination, and the way the puppet is used will impress on our imaginations an effect, and only then can we judge whether that effect is "dehumanising," or indeed, perhaps, paradoxically, humanising.

As far as I can tell, the play opens in two days, and nobody criticising it, including a very nasty piece in the Guardian ( www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/12/casting-puppet-as-autistic-child-step-backwards-new-play-row-other-actors-played-by-humans ) has actually seen it.

I wonder if Simon Lipkin will be operating the puppet? The times I have seen Lipkin operate puppets, he has always acted the part himself, so that you can see the puppet, but you can also see his face. If this were the case, then it would not be entirely true that a puppet was playing the boy, but that BOTH Simon Lipkin AND a puppet would be playing the boy, which would mean that a human conduit would in fact be on stage channeling human emotions.

Whether it was "The Lorax" or Barlow in "I Can't Sing," (less so "Avenue Q"), I was very much aware, in Lipkin, that I watching a warm-blooded human being being very human and warm-blooded, more human and relatable even than the other human actors around him. The fact he was operating a puppet didn't detract from his humanity.

This would be very different from "War Horse," where the puppeteering is invisible and without anthropomorphic characterisation. Still, even in "War Horse," when I saw it, many people related to those puppets more warmly than if they were flesh and blood horses. So even there, you had to see the thing to judge the thing. (And no, I am not saying we can be as cavalier at depicting people as we can with horses, I am just saying that puppetry can be a medium through which emotions and warmth and connection can be conveyed through artistic skill and imagination, and we need to appreciate that skill adn imagination before we judge it).

I would book this right now, despite the controversy, because as far as I can tell, nobody who is judging the play has seen it. And the track record of the people making the show is good.

[zahidf]

Very reasonable statement from the theatre

/

[lou105]

I've just seen this and, having started the thread, probably ought to venture an opinion. First the puppet. There is an adult operator, and he holds the puppet which is a waist-up figure, so a hoody, head and arms. He has one hand in the back of the head and the other operates the hands. He also vocalises. Had I gone in cold, I'm sure I would have seen the puppet as symbolising the innocent child in the midst of the storm of adult feelings. As it was, I was slightly on edge about the whole thing and this probably affected my perception. The play also gets very intense, to the extent that people were crying around me. There is humour, some of it admittedly uncomfortable, and the cast certainly give their all. I didn't fully buy the way the parents were set up against each other, though the contrasting interactions between the child and the carer are very touching.The overall message seems to be sadness that no choice can be fully right but I know that those watching through a lens of more experience will have stronger views .

[foxa]

Thanks for posting that, Lou, interesting to hear from someone who has seen the show.

On twitter, I see there is a planned protest and a director Stephen Unwin, who is the father of an autistic child, has written a reaction to the use of a puppet. www.stephenunwin.uk/thoughts-and-provocations/2019/2/9/puppetgate

Having seen, firsthand, how poor the provision for autistic students is in schools, I can't help but think the energies being directed at what I think was a well-intentioned but clumsy, fringe play, could better be directed elsewhere. But certainly it will make another company think hard about representation, so there is that.

[Mark]

I saw the play this afternoon and here are my thoughts:

Firstly, I found it to be a very engaging play. It's only 80 minutes long, and it zips through quite quickly with only a couple of moments which aren't really needed (a bit with the mum and the carer comes to mind). There are a couple of very high intensity moments which I could see being quite uncomfortable for some. It's hard hitting stuff.

There is no way Laurence could have been played by an autistic child, and even for a non-autistic child I feel it would be far too intense. So I think the puppet it actually a great idea, Hugh Purves operated the puppet but it is so much more than that, and he vocalises and brings a human element to Laurence. This may sound like a bizarre comparison but think Avenue Q. The actors very much used their own expressions alongside the puppet.

It's definitely a one worth seeing, just unfortunate that #puppetgate has been blown out of proportion by some unable to see the value of it as a theatrical device. Then again it has probably brought the attention of the play into the wider public view, so hopefully more people will get to see it!

[alforshort]

Feb 19, 2019 22:37:44 GMT Mark said:

I saw the play this afternoon and here are my thoughts:

Firstly, I found it to be a very engaging play. It's only 80 minutes long, and it zips through quite quickly with only a couple of moments which aren't really needed (a bit with the mum and the carer comes to mind). There are a couple of very high intensity moments which I could see being quite uncomfortable for some. It's hard hitting stuff.

There is no way Laurence could have been played by an autistic child, and even for a non-autistic child I feel it would be far too intense. So I think the puppet it actually a great idea, Hugh Purves operated the puppet but it is so much more than that, and he vocalises and brings a human element to Laurence. This may sound like a bizarre comparison but think Avenue Q. The actors very much used their own expressions alongside the puppet.

It's definitely a one worth seeing, just unfortunate that #puppetgate has been blown out of proportion by some unable to see the value of it as a theatrical device. Then again it has probably brought the attention of the play into the wider public view, so hopefully more people will get to see it!

Please don't write off the views of disabled people like that. It's not being 'unable to see the value of it as a theatrical device' it's having a strong reaction to being dehumanised as this is an ongoing and pervasive problem with attitudes towards autistic people. We're fully human, not just with a 'human element'. I can see exactly why a puppet was used - that doesn't mean I agree with it at all!

I'm not going to see this myself because I think I'll find it too upsetting / intense. It's a shame that autistic representation on stage (not that this is a good example of that!) is so often completely inaccessible to autistic people

[Deleted]

I've just read this very thoughtful blog post on the subject, thought it could be of interest here: www.touretteshero.com/2019/02/17/whos-in-the-rows/

[timothyd]

In the blog she says:

"Disabled people’s lives aren’t free material for playwrights. What we need is support to tell our own stories, invest in disabled performers, and for assumptions to be replaced with genuine discussion.

The long-held motto of many disabled people is ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – this should be the basis on which anything addressing disability is built."

Curious what you all think about this point of view. Can all playwrights write about all subjects? Or has Touretteshero a point?

The reviews for All In are in and quite good. Interested to see the show.

[ensembleswings]

Seeing this tonight and judging by the seating plan online less than 50 tickets have been sold, will be interesting to see what (if any) reaction tonight’s performance gets. I’ve only ever seen to close to or sold out performances at the Southwark Playhouse before.

[welcometodreamland]

I would like to try and see this before it's gone. 9th of March it finishes and the only available date is the 8th for me, so will see what I can do.