|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 20:02:30 GMT
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.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 13, 2018 20:11:15 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 20:18:47 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 21:59:22 GMT
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 🤣🤣
|
|
805 posts
|
Post by duncan on Nov 25, 2018 15:28:38 GMT
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
|
|
805 posts
|
Post by duncan on Nov 25, 2018 15:34:23 GMT
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.
|
|