1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 2, 2016 10:27:32 GMT
Oh look, another man (judging by the little blue icon) who can't tell the difference between systemic oppression and inconvenience. 
Translation, please?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 10:47:26 GMT
Kit's got a mighty set of abs and a fine bottom (and my saying this is NOT sexism, merely objectification, and I'll thank him to learn the goddamned difference), but the fact he always looks on the verge of tears no matter what he's doing means I just can't be attracted to him. How can anyone have sexy feelings about someone who looks like the mere thought of sexy times will make him cry and thus make you feel guilty? He has very odd eyes I agree with this post |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 2, 2016 11:05:41 GMT
No translation required. The meaning is clear, with some thought. Not everyone will agree with the statement, but that makes it even more important that they hear it.
Well, "systemic oppression" is an all-purpose phrase used inappropriately here - glad you think it's "important" though. It's the word "inconvenience" I can't work out. Perhaps it has a meaning I'm unaware of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 13:59:38 GMT
I think Baemax meant that objectification is an inconvenience whereas sexism is systematic oppression. That's not to say that the former can't form part of the latter but I think the at the end implied a bit of tongue in cheek. (Baemax has been rescuing me elsewhere on here so I'm returning the favour ) |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 2, 2016 14:04:24 GMT
I think Baemax meant that objectification is an inconvenience whereas sexism is systematic oppression. That's not to say that the former can't form part of the latter but I think the at the end implied a bit of tongue in cheek. (Baemax has been rescuing me elsewhere on here so I'm returning the favour )
I always ignore smiley faces - perhaps I shouldn't. Thanks for the clarification, Em.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 2, 2016 15:56:18 GMT
Fit Kit was complaining about sexism towards men in an interview earlier this week, because he is often asked to take his shirt off for photo shoots.
The more charitable interpretation of that is that he meant that he felt objectified by the experience, and went along with a discussion of all the ways that sexism does indeed affect men negatively, as well as women. The less charitable interpretations involved eyes being rolled and snarky comments.
So I'm fairly sure Baemax was referring to that.
|
|
5,795 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 5, 2016 8:19:04 GMT
Sorry but there's nothing funny looking about Kit. He clearly work out hard and the results can delight us all. I thought he looked like a god up on that stage. A remarkable physique. And I think he's a great actor too- when given the chance.
|
|
2,848 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Jun 5, 2016 8:23:29 GMT
Fit Kit was complaining about sexism towards men in an interview earlier this week, because he is often asked to take his shirt off for photo shoots. The more charitable interpretation of that is that he meant that he felt objectified by the experience, and went along with a discussion of all the ways that sexism does indeed affect men negatively, as well as women. The less charitable interpretations involved eyes being rolled and snarky comments. So I'm fairly sure Baemax was referring to that. It's true that men can be objectified, but I wonder where Kit would be now if he wasn't handsome and with a fantastic body... |
|
5,795 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 5, 2016 8:29:11 GMT
I agree.. It works both ways. Plus he's in a position now to just say no if he's asked to whip it out at a photo shoot surely? I'd love to be objectified for my body.. Fit Kit was complaining about sexism towards men in an interview earlier this week, because he is often asked to take his shirt off for photo shoots. The more charitable interpretation of that is that he meant that he felt objectified by the experience, and went along with a discussion of all the ways that sexism does indeed affect men negatively, as well as women. The less charitable interpretations involved eyes being rolled and snarky comments. So I'm fairly sure Baemax was referring to that. It's true that men can be objectified, but I wonder where Kit would be now if he wasn't handsome and with a fantastic body... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 11:22:15 GMT
To be fair kit really hasn't done that many topless shoots. There have been a couple, and the famous candid topless working out ones but much of his nakedness has been in roles like pompeii. Even in GOT he isn't topless often
He has a point, men get objectified more and more these days but unfortunately he just seems to come across as taking himself too seriously. Not helped by saying it while doing a play that he is half naked some of the time
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 5, 2016 17:13:10 GMT
I think part of the issue is that men are now being held to the same standards of physical attractiveness as women always have been, and are finding that it just as uncomfortable as women always have.
However, they are generally still getting meatier roles to play and paid a lot more for doing so, and don't face the prospect of roles drying up when they hit 40!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 18:13:17 GMT
One of the things that amused me in the half of Faustus that I saw was the ushers who would appear just before Kit got his shirt off, presumably to monitor for cameras
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 19:52:55 GMT
I think part of the issue is that men are now being held to the same standards of physical attractiveness as women always have been, and are finding that it just as uncomfortable as women always have. However, they are generally still getting meatier roles to play and paid a lot more for doing so, and don't face the prospect of roles drying up when they hit 40! I don't disagree, although a large reason for that is many of the classics, due to their time, feature male roles. We need more modern new plays to feature strong female roles. I do think women have the better end of the stick in roles in musicals on the whole though. The Barbie argument annoys me though, men have had unrealistic role models for decades too (hello He-man, comic book heroes etc). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 20:17:04 GMT
Reminds me of the Riot Grrrl group Voodoo Queens whose first single was "Supermodel Superficial" which was all about the unrealistic body images girls grow up with.
Second single was "Kenauwe Head" which was all about how fit Keanu Reeves is and had a drawing of him with no shirt on as the cover.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 20:46:17 GMT
The thing about unrealistic body types in, say, comics is that muscular male frames are presented as aspirational for the male readers to want to emulate while the busty female frames are presented as aspirational... for the male readers to want to possess (or for the female readers to want to emulate so that the male readers will want to possess). Female fitness is usually less about women feeling great about themselves and more about women being attractive to men, while male fitness is... well, not as much about attracting the ladies as vice versa.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 21:22:06 GMT
Yes, but females in comics weren't designed to be aspirational to women (not saying that's right, just a fact). Girls grew up with Barbie and similar dolls or Disney princesses to aspire to, men had overly muscle bound men to aspire to. Both sexes have grown up with unrealistic expectations and role models.
Women are sometimes their own worst enemy when it comes to judging eachother. Magazines and websites that criticise female celeb bodies are big business with women, and with the positive increase in female fitness these women are then slated for being too 'manly' just because they have a little muscle and haven't done some stupid cabbage diet and are actually fit and healthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Jun 7, 2016 3:57:30 GMT
Oh come on, everyone, it’s 2016, I thought we knew how to behave by now. You can objectify anyone you want, just as long as you don’t publicly admit to it. And besides, Mallardo, I’m disappointed – Mrs Henderson Presents is just up the road and you’re commenting on the pulchritudinousness of THIS?
By the way, all the talk about men being objectified is bullsh*t. I’m a man in my 20s and there’s no pressure on me to look a certain way whatsoever – there’s the notion that a certain metrosexual looking after myself might be attractive to some, but if I want to look like John Goodman I can. My hunch is it’s not like that for a woman in her 20s.
But still, FitKit’s no Michael Xavier.
So, Nicholas, it seems like your expectations were betrayed and yet your take on Jamie Lloyd - which I generally agree with - should have led you to expect just what you got. This was never a deeply serious show, it's a fantasy on fame starring one of the currently most famous actors in the world. On its own terms it's a rollicking evening, complete with cabaret in the interval and a mob scene in the street outside. Yes, too bad about Marlowe and all that but it's an event. And, IMO, it made the points it set out to make.
See, I thought that satire was a) slightly overstretched (two and a half hours plus mythological establishment dragged it out), b) wasn’t exploited to its full potential, and c) didn’t continue the themes of sin and morality the opening established – better a trimmer two-hours-straight-through version, or simply a newly commissioned Faust play. But it’s horses for courses – as always, I greatly admire what you’ve written (wanted to say, your writing on People, Places and Things was beautiful), and I think what you’ve said here is a great reading of the show; I just disagree with it completely, and life would be boring if we always agreed.
But that said, I’ve got to agree with Kathryn: getting people very agitated means the show must be doing something half right. I mean, the show’s brought out quite an ugly, stubborn part of me – I call it my inner Parsley – and whilst that’s clearly a taste thing, the middle of the road doesn’t anger you so. I begrudgingly admit that a small part of me is excited that something like this is opening blind in the West End.
Regardless, I’ll still be first in line for Lloyd’s next season. He’s worked genuine wonders in the past, and even at his worst, his upfront political edge and tendency to take an interpretation too far never lead to a lack of discussion. There’s a black mark by his name now, but I still can’t wait to see where he goes next, and I admire him for plonking this in the West End and not compromising a single word of his vision, even though my stubborn inner Parsley still thinks it’s utter bullsh*t.
P.S. Enough time has gone by to admit it – I LOVED Lloyd’s She Stoops to Conquer. I remember there being a fair bit of sniffiness about it, but I loved it as I’ve loved few shows (it’s since been eclipsed by Nell Gwynn, but that was joy personified). Again, all surface, but given that that play’s surface involves nice people defying class to love each other, taking that surface to its extreme was lovely stuff wringing the pleasure out of every line, and as much as I hated hated hated hated Faustus I loved loved loved loved loved She Stoops. I remember on the old place that most people weren’t too enamoured with it, but again, horses for courses. |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 7, 2016 7:00:59 GMT
Well, we could argue for days, Nicholas, on whether or not Lloyd's show works in categories a), b) and c) - I would contend it does - but your response is sublimely reasonable and we'll just agree to disagree. Incidentally I also loved She Stoops to Conquer (and Nell Gwynn, for that matter) and as for the pulchritude on display in Mrs. Henderson, I have perhaps said too much already (as TheatreMonkey keeps reminding me) and only got into the discussion re Kit Harrington through a misunderstanding that was put right (thank you, again, EmiCardiff and Kathryn) by others.
I think that's all. If I was a person who did smiley faces I'd put one here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2016 7:27:09 GMT
Oh go on, think of the Mrs Henderson ladies and give us a....  |
|
5,795 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 7, 2016 8:30:19 GMT
Kit is in way better shape than Xavier- those moob things aren't muscle. Oh come on, everyone, it’s 2016, I thought we knew how to behave by now. You can objectify anyone you want, just as long as you don’t publicly admit to it. And besides, Mallardo, I’m disappointed – Mrs Henderson Presents is just up the road and you’re commenting on the pulchritudinousness of THIS?
By the way, all the talk about men being objectified is bullsh*t. I’m a man in my 20s and there’s no pressure on me to look a certain way whatsoever – there’s the notion that a certain metrosexual looking after myself might be attractive to some, but if I want to look like John Goodman I can. My hunch is it’s not like that for a woman in her 20s.
But still, FitKit’s no Michael Xavier.
So, Nicholas, it seems like your expectations were betrayed and yet your take on Jamie Lloyd - which I generally agree with - should have led you to expect just what you got. This was never a deeply serious show, it's a fantasy on fame starring one of the currently most famous actors in the world. On its own terms it's a rollicking evening, complete with cabaret in the interval and a mob scene in the street outside. Yes, too bad about Marlowe and all that but it's an event. And, IMO, it made the points it set out to make.
See, I thought that satire was a) slightly overstretched (two and a half hours plus mythological establishment dragged it out), b) wasn’t exploited to its full potential, and c) didn’t continue the themes of sin and morality the opening established – better a trimmer two-hours-straight-through version, or simply a newly commissioned Faust play. But it’s horses for courses – as always, I greatly admire what you’ve written (wanted to say, your writing on People, Places and Things was beautiful), and I think what you’ve said here is a great reading of the show; I just disagree with it completely, and life would be boring if we always agreed.
But that said, I’ve got to agree with Kathryn: getting people very agitated means the show must be doing something half right. I mean, the show’s brought out quite an ugly, stubborn part of me – I call it my inner Parsley – and whilst that’s clearly a taste thing, the middle of the road doesn’t anger you so. I begrudgingly admit that a small part of me is excited that something like this is opening blind in the West End.
Regardless, I’ll still be first in line for Lloyd’s next season. He’s worked genuine wonders in the past, and even at his worst, his upfront political edge and tendency to take an interpretation too far never lead to a lack of discussion. There’s a black mark by his name now, but I still can’t wait to see where he goes next, and I admire him for plonking this in the West End and not compromising a single word of his vision, even though my stubborn inner Parsley still thinks it’s utter bullsh*t.
P.S. Enough time has gone by to admit it – I LOVED Lloyd’s She Stoops to Conquer. I remember there being a fair bit of sniffiness about it, but I loved it as I’ve loved few shows (it’s since been eclipsed by Nell Gwynn, but that was joy personified). Again, all surface, but given that that play’s surface involves nice people defying class to love each other, taking that surface to its extreme was lovely stuff wringing the pleasure out of every line, and as much as I hated hated hated hated Faustus I loved loved loved loved loved She Stoops. I remember on the old place that most people weren’t too enamoured with it, but again, horses for courses. |
|
|
|
Post by raiseitup on Jun 7, 2016 18:49:43 GMT
|
|
943 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jun 7, 2016 19:20:48 GMT
Damm wish I'd known about this earlier. Her singing was the best bit! |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 8, 2016 7:34:04 GMT
I do agree with you, Nicholas, about Jamie Lloyd. I hated Urinetown with a fiery passion, and only James McAvoy saved Macbeth from my ire, but for me his productions are still worth watching because when they work for me, they really work.
P.S. Totally going to steal that line about a production bringing out your inner Parsley next time I hate something.
|
|
64 posts
|
Post by Squire Sullen on Jun 9, 2016 0:03:23 GMT
Saw this last week, and all I can say that while I've enjoyed Jamie Lloyd productions in the past, he really went too far this time. It bordered on Lloyd parodying his own style to the point where rather than 'Jamie Lloyd does Faustus', it felt like 'Jamie Lloyd does Jamie Lloyd does Faustus'.
Jenna Russell fantastic as always though, so it wasn't a total disaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by welsh_tenor on Jun 11, 2016 13:07:47 GMT
Seeing today's matinee and Kit Harington is indisposed... Brian Gilligan is on for Faustus.
Very gutted to be at the only show Kit has missed but still looking forward to seeing the play!
|
|
