1,828 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Nov 7, 2021 10:10:58 GMT
I find it hard to believe nobody noticed this sooner. I wonder if they're pulping the playtexts and reprinting? They have said they are.
There was a second statement later
A statement in response to Rare Earth Mettle character name
Published on Sat 6 Nov 2021
The Royal Court Theatre apologises unreservedly for this situation. It was a mistake, it shouldn’t have happened, and we are sorry it did.
We stand in solidarity with our Jewish staff, artists, audiences and friends and are grateful to those who got in touch to communicate that the character named Hershel Fink was perpetuating an antisemitic stereotype. In response, the writer has decided to change the name to Henry Finn – this will be effective from the first performances next week, and we shall reprint all communications and the play text with this change.
Now we are looking towards the dialogue that will help us reflect on the process that enabled the name to remain and what is missing in our systems that would have mitigated this unnecessary harm. Our anti-racism work is current and ongoing, and this experience proves once again how necessary and wide that work must be. We will work hard now in the hope of building trust and confidence within our Jewish community.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Nov 7, 2021 10:26:34 GMT
I don’t comment on this site much but I’m Jewish and I have been upset by this all day. It’s not the name itself that’s a problem, it’s the name which is, whatever googling people want to do, very very clearly Jewish, being attached to every antisemitic trope in the planet about Jewish people being avaricious, money-grabbing, ‘stealing indigenous land’, I can go on but the trailer from the play in the context of a clearly intended Jewish character (and no, I don’t for a split second believe their ‘but the character isn’t Jewish, thing - Herschel Fink isn’t a dog whistle, it’s a dog foghorn) is very uncomfortable viewing and to me, screams racism . What hurts more is the Royal Court fluffing on about what great work they are doing on anti-racism while clearly showing contempt and ignorance of the Jewish community at a time of rising antisemitism. It’s not cancel culture. They can change the name - and could have at any point in the process - without changing the play and it wouldn’t have been an issue. The same play with a name that didn’t scream ‘this is a Jewish man’, wouldn’t have the same connotations because they wouldn’t link to centuries old tropes. I’m sad it has to be spelt out like this. I’m off again to lurking for a few more years And just to add - thank you so much to those who have spoken out. It has been a bit grim being Jewish over the last few years in particular and I have stopped expecting people to ‘get it’ so I am really really grateful to those who do and have spoken up It's notable too that in a character trailer, where the character is seen making an advert for his company, the name on the clapperboard (seen at the start of each abortive take) is 'Debbie Aarons'. Was this another fictional name to open up his universe; if so was it just for the trailer, or another character in the play itself? If a fictional choice, it extends the references to Jewish identity they attached to the central character. It's still on the Royal Court website. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 7, 2021 13:13:45 GMT
Doesn’t particularly surprise me that the Royal Court didn’t spot this sooner. Recent history shows that some on the Corbynite left have a blind spot when it comes to anti-Semitism. David Baddiel has written interestingly on the topic.
|
|
4,021 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Nov 7, 2021 18:54:48 GMT
It's a character with a name that is heavily implied to be Jewish who is portrayed as an immoral money grabber. What aren't you getting about this? I'm not getting why a villainous character can't be Jewish? In real life you get some villainous, or just not very nice, people from every racial or religious background. The Royal Court is a notoriously left-wing theatre & many left-wing people seem to think the entire nation of Israel isn't very nice because of their treatment of Palestine (I completely disagree with that opinion. As far as I'm concerned God gave the land to the Israelites millenia ago, so it's theirs.) |
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Nov 7, 2021 19:14:43 GMT
It's a character with a name that is heavily implied to be Jewish who is portrayed as an immoral money grabber. What aren't you getting about this? I'm not getting why a villainous character can't be Jewish? In real life you get some villainous, or just not very nice, people from every racial or religious background. The Royal Court is a notoriously left-wing theatre & many left-wing people seem to think the entire nation of Israel isn't very nice because of their treatment of Palestine (I completely disagree with that opinion. As far as I'm concerned God gave the land to the Israelites millenia ago, so it's theirs.) Because Jewish people have been stereotyped as mean, avaricious, money-obsessed, etc and these were believed by many to be actual racial characteristics. So choosing a Jewish name for a money-grabbing character is offensive because it fits those incorrect and offensive historical stereotypes. Perhaps also because the RC is seen as left wing, they should be extra careful about the portrayal of Jewish characters, at a time when the left is still embroiled in accusations of anti-Semitism. |
|
4,021 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Nov 7, 2021 19:34:23 GMT
Because Jewish people have been stereotyped as mean, avaricious, money-obsessed, etc and these were believed by many to be actual racial characteristics. So choosing a Jewish name for a money-grabbing character is offensive because it fits those incorrect and offensive historical stereotypes. Perhaps also because the RC is seen as left wing, they should be extra careful about the portrayal of Jewish characters, at a time when the left is still embroiled in accusations of anti-Semitism. I guess I don't see enough serious plays, because the only dramatic character that I can think of who fits that stereotype is Shylock. More in books, admittedly. I suppose it would depend on what the Royal Court think are the majority opinions of their core audience. I wonder if it would be considered acceptable to have a character who is villainous in some way unconnected to money - say a murderer in a crime passionel - have a Jewish name. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 7, 2021 19:40:57 GMT
It's notable too that in a character trailer, where the character is seen making an advert for his company, the name on the clapperboard (seen at the start of each abortive take) is 'Debbie Aarons'. Was this another fictional name to open up his universe; if so was it just for the trailer, or another character in the play itself? If a fictional choice, it extends the references to Jewish identity they attached to the central character. It's still on the Royal Court website. It is, and it's dated 3/2020 so it must part of the same fictional world. Two 'accidentally' Jewish-named characters working on the same 'side' in the play? |
|
525 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Nov 7, 2021 20:26:56 GMT
It's a character with a name that is heavily implied to be Jewish who is portrayed as an immoral money grabber. What aren't you getting about this? I'm not getting why a villainous character can't be Jewish? You've completely lost me. I'm baffled as to how you can miss the point by so much. Honestly just re read what everyone is saying here, it's not particularly difficult to follow. |
|
4,021 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Nov 7, 2021 20:45:52 GMT
I'm not getting why a villainous character can't be Jewish? You've completely lost me. I'm baffled as to how you can miss the point by so much. Honestly just re read what everyone is saying here, it's not particularly difficult to follow. has kindly explained. Maybe it's because I'm autistic, I don't always understand things in the way normal people do & sometimes need to ask what others think are obvious questions. |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Nov 7, 2021 21:17:17 GMT
I can explain.
It’s nothing to do with having a villainous character who is Jewish. It’s having a Jewish character whose specific “villainous qualities” are well-known antisemitic tropes that have been used in racist propaganda for centuries.
If someone created a villain who was a serial killer who went around butchering people with a chainsaw, and that character happened to be Jewish, that wouldn’t necessarily be antisemitic since there’s no history of Jewish people being associated with chainsaws.
If you don’t mind a quick history lesson: during the Middle Ages Jewish people were banned from many jobs and guilds and were forced to become money lenders, which was considered dirty/bad and not something decent Christian people were allowed to do. The entire reason that the association between Jews and finance exists in the first place is because Christian Western societies quite literally forced Jews to do so.
The authorities and the Church (remember this is when the Church had huge power) then demonised and violently oppressed Jewish people for doing the very thing they themselves had forced them to do.
The historical association of Jews and finance was then weaponised to incite Jew hate, and this association has been a mainstay of antisemitic propaganda ever since. Over time this association grew and grew, and developed into conspiracy theories, about Jews secretly controlling the world (as well as racist tropes about Jews being greedy, Jews being Demonic, Jews not caring about anything but money).
This antisemetic propaganda has been directly responsible for centuries of murder and oppression, including forced exiles and genocides.
For example, one of the main reasons WWII/the Holocaust happened was because the Treaty of Versailles (the Treaty that formally ended WWI) enforced such incredibly harsh penalties on Germany - Germany was ordered to pay Reparations to a cost that would be £284 BILLION in today’s money - that the country went broke and plunged the German people into severe poverty and starvation.
Now the number one rule of government is always find someone else to blame and scapegoat for your failures, and always find someone weaker to blame. Of course the German government were not going to hold their hands up and say “hey we screwed up, we went to war and lost and this is our punishment.” Instead the German government launched a deliberate plan to convince the German people that their country’s financial situation was the fault of the Jews, who were secretly hoarding money.
It’s the exact same thing the Tory government and Tory press do when they try to pretend the country’s financial problems are due to disabled people claiming benefits (disability benefit fraud is something like 1% and the amount the government pay out in disability benefits is negligible) to detract attention from the fact the UK would have a lot more money if the government made corporations pay tax, and cracked down on corruption! But it’s easier to lie to people that the reason they had to wait ten hours in an understaffed A&E is because Jim from next door who has MS used his benefits money to buy a TV.
The Holocaust simply would not have happened if the German government hadn’t used Jews as a scapegoat, and the reason they were able to do so is because of literally centuries of antisemitic propaganda painting Jews as money hoarders. (There’s plenty of information out there if you want to research, start by looking at post-WWI era propaganda posters and magazines.)
This continues to this day. That’s without even going into the Elders of Zion, blood libel, Q-Anon.
That’s the reason this specific set of characteristics is antisemitic. Because it’s referencing a specific stereotype that was invented in order to scapegoat Jews, demonise Jews, incite racial hatred, and justify forced expulsion and genocide.
|
|
4,021 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Nov 7, 2021 21:32:33 GMT
It’s nothing to do with having a villainous character who is Jewish. It’s having a Jewish character whose specific “villainous quantities” are well-known antisemitic tropes that have been used in racist propaganda for centuries. If someone created a villain who was a serial killer who went around butchering people with a chainsaw, and that character happened to be Jewish, that wouldn’t necessarily be antisemitic since there’s no history of Jewish people being associated with chainsaws. Thank you for answering my question. It is good to see that the objection has a well-founded specific reason & is not like the blanket objections that sometimes seem to happen nowadays, when it can feel like villains can only be prosperous white men. That is what I thought might be the case when I first saw comments about the issue, as I don't know much about what the play is about. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 8, 2021 9:00:31 GMT
They've just had David Baddiel on talking about it on Radio 4's Today programme.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 8, 2021 17:29:36 GMT
The Royal Court got this wrong by not spotting this months ago.
They got it wrong in the way they have handled it since the criticism started pouring in.
This is a resignation matter for senior management. Someone needs to accept responsibility and do the honorable thing. This is not about demanding a sacrifice to the mob. This is about a serious mismanagement across an entire organisation that likes to pride itself on being ideologically perfect.
|
|
4,789 posts
|
Post by Mark on Nov 8, 2021 18:11:11 GMT
Curious - what has the name been changed to? (Sorrry if I missed it).
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Nov 8, 2021 18:32:43 GMT
Curious - what has the name been changed to? (Sorrry if I missed it). Herschel Fink has become Henry Finn. As someone said on Twitter, it's a strange mirroring of the kind of adaptation Jewish people used to do (some may still) to 'pass' as a gentile. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 9, 2021 10:15:45 GMT
Succession spoiler alert: a strand in yesterday's episode was partly built around this theme. A character is mentioned called Josh Aaronson, and the Waystar people start dropping anti-semitic tropes and phrases into the conversation. The programme writers assume their audience are sensitive enough to pick up on this, and if they don't, towards the end, it's called out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 9, 2021 10:21:05 GMT
The Royal Court got this wrong by not spotting this months ago. They got it wrong in the way they have handled it since the criticism started pouring in. This is a resignation matter for senior management. Someone needs to accept responsibility and do the honorable thing. This is not about demanding a sacrifice to the mob. This is about a serious mismanagement across an entire organisation that likes to pride itself on being ideologically perfect. I imagine that left to their own devices no-one will resign and based on recent history probably a few of them still don't think there's anything wrong. ACE should step in. Their explanation that it was due to "unconscious bias" is interesting as it basically admits the charge with "bias" being something of a euphemism. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 16, 2021 0:07:32 GMT
I went tonight. It’s a lot of fun, tongue-in-cheek, smart, insightful, thought-provoking and more. I came away thinking of it as a season of Succession-like shenanigans crammed into three hours.
* Succession = HBO tv show, now 3 series.
Contemporary issues and cultures are thrown up and twisted around without a pulpit being wheeled out. Multiple levels, lots of ideas and perspectives. Taking one to illustrate: Elon Musk (pretty literally) vs. the NHS as a clash of ideologies, ethics, solutions/outcomes, and also challenging their evangelical dimensions, played out on an Ecuadorian salt flat littered with colonial detritus.
Name checks from Jobs and Gates to Thunberg and Trump help suggest the space we're in.
I’m not sure this can be trimmed much (or that they'd want to!). Atm it’s 7.30 to 10.38 (with a 15-minute break). Much to dwell on. In a good way, it’s a bit epic. |
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Nov 18, 2021 23:33:51 GMT
|
|
83 posts
|
Post by G on Nov 24, 2021 0:50:26 GMT
I went tonight. It’s a lot of fun, tongue-in-cheek, smart, insightful, thought-provoking and more. I came away thinking of it as a season of Succession-like shenanigans crammed into three hours.
* Succession = HBO tv show, now 3 series.
Contemporary issues and cultures are thrown up and twisted around without a pulpit being wheeled out. Multiple levels, lots of ideas and perspectives. Taking one to illustrate: Elon Musk (pretty literally) vs. the NHS as a clash of ideologies, ethics, solutions/outcomes, and also challenging their evangelical dimensions, played out on an Ecuadorian salt flat littered with colonial detritus.
Name checks from Jobs and Gates to Thunberg and Trump help suggest the space we're in.
I’m not sure this can be trimmed much (or that they'd want to!). Atm it’s 7.30 to 10.38 (with a 15-minute break). Much to dwell on. In a good way, it’s a bit epic. (The antisemitism trope situation is appalling, as the fact that it was not spotted a mile away and the poor manner it was dealt with). Just saw this earlier and it was a hoot. Epic is a good way to put it. Very funny (the choreography! the translations!), long but doesn't drag. The post above mentions HBO - if this was turned into a TV series I would probably watch it, and there should be plenty of material for a couple of seasons at least. |
|
|
|
Post by Forrest on Nov 24, 2021 7:56:05 GMT
I really disliked this: I left the theatre wondering why on earth the Court would want to stage it.
The characters were all caricatures, the portrayal of the Bolivians was very much "from a higher/Western ground" and felt really problematic, the plot was nonsensical and unconvincing, the staging was chaotic (but not in a good way)...
The only good thing in it, for me, was Arthur Darvill, who was brilliant. (But just to make it clear - the cast were not at all to blame for me disliking this, they all did a good job with what they were given to work with.)
This is one of those things I am pretty eager to forget, the first time this has happened to me with the Court.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 24, 2021 10:04:23 GMT
It's paywalled, but there was an article on it in the Sunday Times and the article's writer posted on Twitter that the anti-semitic issue with the name was flagged up to the director Hamish Pirie but he didn't convey this to the writer. The writer of the article, Kate Maltby, also comments on Twitter that the Royal Court didn't release the information until after her article had gone to press, 'as they knew'. It's bad, especially coming from a venue that is so meticulously careful when it comes to other groups and issues (there was even talk of them confiscating plastic water bottles from audience members a couple of years ago!).
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 24, 2021 10:18:30 GMT
I've continued to ponder this. In a way it reminds me a little of Emma Rice's Bahgdad Café at the Old Vic, and I got no where near figuring that one either. Here I'm stiil musing parody or pastiche as well as straight. Can't come to a clear view and maybe that's fine - treat it as a pure entertainment and let it wash over.
The Elon Musk vs. NHS thing still nags at me, though. There be big ideas in there somewhere. A second look might not hurt and I do so love sinking into those Stalls seats ..
|
|
5,691 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 25, 2021 18:09:51 GMT
It's paywalled, but there was an article on it in the Sunday Times and the article's writer posted on Twitter that the anti-semitic issue with the name was flagged up to the director Hamish Pirie but he didn't convey this to the writer. The writer of the article, Kate Maltby, also comments on Twitter that the Royal Court didn't release the information until after her article had gone to press, 'as they knew'. It's bad, especially coming from a venue that is so meticulously careful when it comes to other groups and issues (there was even talk of them confiscating plastic water bottles from audience members a couple of years ago!). In all the years it is the only theatre where phones have gone off again and again with no notice taken by staff. It also had terrible toilets. The food and bar, poor. Yes, the seats are comfy, but the sight lines are poor, you are under a canopy at the back of the stalls. All in all, I can do without and now I know about this production, I do not need to bother to go there. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 25, 2021 22:11:17 GMT
I don't eat there so can't comment on the revamp. What I do know is the beer is very good and the cheapest in this part of town by a distance - you'd have to seek out the Weatherspoons at Victoria for better value.
|
|
