6,285 posts
|
Post by Jon on Mar 30, 2019 0:28:39 GMT
I don't get why people want Norris to step down, it's like hoping for someone to lose their job which is not on at all.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 0:47:39 GMT
If you'd sat in on as many literary department and artistic director meetings as I have, you would not be so dismissive in your certainty that there is no agenda or quota. I don’t doubt you at all, but I’d be interested to know what that agenda is then. I think most of us - or at least I do - just find it entirely alien to dismiss someones work entirely on the basis of their sex. Though as a Potterhead I know there has to be something to it - even Joanne Rowling had to change her name to J.K.Rowling because her publishers said boys won’t buy books written by girls. But at least those were kids - I can’t apply the same logic to adults and theatre. I saw Sondheim at the NT earlier this evening and I got talking to a friend afterwards about female composers and deciding that it’s strange a female composer has never really emerged as a household name as familiar as Hammerstein, Sondheim, Lloyd-Weber. Even Sondheim name dropped a lot of his writing collaborators and as far as I recall they were all men too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 0:52:15 GMT
I don't get why people want Norris to step down, it's like hoping for someone to lose their job which is not on at all. Yet half the country is hoping the Prime Minister loses hers! It’s not about wanting someone to lose their job, but someone being the right person for the job. People in high profile roles will always be scrutinised as to their ability to do the job without it ever actually being personal.
|
|
6,285 posts
|
Post by Jon on Mar 30, 2019 1:10:12 GMT
If you'd sat in on as many literary department and artistic director meetings as I have, you would not be so dismissive in your certainty that there is no agenda or quota. I don’t doubt you at all, but I’d be interested to know what that agenda is then. I think most of us - or at least I do - just find it entirely alien to dismiss someones work entirely on the basis of their sex. Though as a Potterhead I know there has to be something to it - even Joanne Rowling had to change her name to J.K.Rowling because her publishers said boys won’t buy books written by girls. But at least those were kids - I can’t apply the same logic to adults and theatre. I saw Sondheim at the NT earlier this evening and I got talking to a friend afterwards about female composers and deciding that it’s strange a female composer has never really emerged as a household name as familiar as Hammerstein, Sondheim, Lloyd-Weber. Even Sondheim name dropped a lot of his writing collaborators and as far as I recall they were all men too. Jeanine Tesori is the only one I can think of who has seen mainstream success with musicals in recent times.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 30, 2019 1:24:47 GMT
Women make up 50% of the population. It's insane how much of a disparity there is, and the idea that gender equality is a one-off thing, that they can cart a load of "lady writers" in for one season before returning to business as usual shows how deeply entrenched sexism is. This ballyhoo on lady writers blows up again, that article by the BBC makes it sound there is a conspiracy against the ladies. Sure if they want more lady writers then they need to write decent plays that get picked up, there has never been a limit/quota on male/female. Almeida to be ultra pc and jump on the bandwagon did a lady season recently and their commissioned play The Writer was simply atrocious. Equality should come about by quality and that is how I it should be, the gold standard. But that's simply not true. The argument that "if women playwrights are being overlooked it's obviously because they're just not writing decent plays" is absolute, total tosh. There are many, many wonderful plays that never get read because female writers are so overlooked. Female-authored plays that are massive hits on the fringe or festival circuit struggle to get transfers, where half-decent middling male-authored plays get snapped up. Male playwrights with a couple of okay fringe productions get offered large spaces, commissions, screen deals and agent representation far more and far faster than female playwrights with more substantial records (who are usually marginalised to studio spaces). And God knows there's plenty of utter dross by male writers that go straight to the Olivier or West End simply because of the name and status of the person involved. If you'd sat in on as many literary department and artistic director meetings as I have, you would not be so dismissive in your certainty that there is no agenda or quota. This is not a specifically female thing, but last year I personally witnessed a DepAD say, "This is a fantastic play, but the playwright is disabled and we've already fulfilled our minority quota with [play from an Asian writer]". Making explicitly clear that they would not programme more than one play by someone they perceived as "a minority" in one season, regardless of quality. I cannot comment on individual cases, but I am sure the National Theatre literary department would just judge the hundred of scripts they get on just one criteria. Also scripts are subjective, because a play might appeal to you, it might not appeal to others. There is a small niche of female playwrights who are generally fantastic and have had the vision to write stuff that comes straight from the top draw, I don’t need to name them, we all know who they are. Sure stuff written by men are also subjective and I can vouch I have sat through some rubbish, where are Martin Crimp and David Hare 2 recent offenders! Then again I sat through Top Girls this week at the National both done by female writer and director, and suffered a great deal as did most of the audience and then the argument for ladies is a hard one to make out! I have nothing against lady playwrights or creatives but as I have said it would be wrong to have a quota system and the benchmark has to be quality. Females being under represented in arts is argument raging going across the board in the art world, of the 2300 paintings in the National Gallery only 21 are by ladies, the National this month have dedicated all their 10 minute talks to lady artists. I managed to go to two by French artists Rosa Bonheur and Elizabeth Louise Viglee Le Brun (Self Portrait and one of my favourite in the whole collection the hat, hair and the lace on the dress are mind blowing brilliant.) Chances is that if I wasn’t so ill earlier this month I would have attended all 4. The National have just purchased a painting by Artemisia Gentileschi a Self Portrait As Saint Catherine, to address the imbalance, but in reality this imbalance will never be addressed as all the famous painters are men and are more likely to be purchased/inherited/Loaned/Gifted in the future. The Self Portrait As Saint Catherine is quite wonderful.
|
|
3,471 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Mar 30, 2019 5:00:21 GMT
Tweet from the Finborough Theatre:
"Announcing our new season very soon - with two thirds by female playwrights! You know, the ones the National didn’t want..."
|
|
1,845 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Mar 30, 2019 8:04:43 GMT
Going to the Art of the Artistic Director talk at the National next week where Rufus is one of the guests, it will be interesting to see if this issue is raised.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 8:09:47 GMT
Going to the Art of the Artistic Director talk at the National next week where Rufus is one of the guests, it will be interesting to see if this issue is raised. It will be, of course, but he will point out the great work done by The National over the last few years to address sexual balance and, more than likely, the women ADs on stage with him will agree. How sad is it that the World we currently live in won't give this as much coverage as someone with good intentions but terribly wrong saying that the National is sexist? Enjoy the Platform by the way. It should be interesting and if I have one resentment of my current job not being in the middle of the City for the first time in 25 years its caused by not being able to attend these wonderful talks.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 8:13:23 GMT
I don't get why people want Norris to step down, it's like hoping for someone to lose their job which is not on at all. He's not been a huge success but few of the previous incumbents got of to a great start and there were questions about their position for most for the first couple of years of their reigns.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Mar 30, 2019 10:21:51 GMT
This ballyhoo on lady writers blows up again, that article by the BBC makes it sound there is a conspiracy against the ladies. Sure if they want more lady writers then they need to write decent plays that get picked up, there has never been a limit/quota on male/female. Almeida to be ultra pc and jump on the bandwagon did a lady season recently and their commissioned play The Writer was simply atrocious. Equality should come about by quality and that is how I it should be, the gold standard. I have been on record on saying that Marianne Elliot would be my second choice as artistic director of the Nash, with only Stephen Daltry just slightly ahead, both have sighted personal commitments why they cannot do the role, that’s why I think it would be excellent if they both shared the role, when it comes available. The Writer was my favourite play of last year. Dance Nation, also in that season, was also in my top five. By any yardstick, this season was highly successful and went some way towards redressing the balance.
|
|
2,345 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 30, 2019 10:39:15 GMT
This ballyhoo on lady writers blows up again, that article by the BBC makes it sound there is a conspiracy against the ladies. Sure if they want more lady writers then they need to write decent plays that get picked up, there has never been a limit/quota on male/female. Almeida to be ultra pc and jump on the bandwagon did a lady season recently and their commissioned play The Writer was simply atrocious. Equality should come about by quality and that is how I it should be, the gold standard. I have been on record on saying that Marianne Elliot would be my second choice as artistic director of the Nash, with only Stephen Daltry just slightly ahead, both have sighted personal commitments why they cannot do the role, that’s why I think it would be excellent if they both shared the role, when it comes available. The Writer was my favourite play of last year. Dance Nation, also in that season, was also in my top five. By any yardstick, this season was highly successful and went some way towards redressing the balance. The writer was good and I agree dance nation was excellent.
|
|
2,345 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 30, 2019 10:39:25 GMT
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Mar 30, 2019 10:46:17 GMT
If you'd sat in on as many literary department and artistic director meetings as I have, you would not be so dismissive in your certainty that there is no agenda or quota. I don’t doubt you at all, but I’d be interested to know what that agenda is then. I think most of us - or at least I do - just find it entirely alien to dismiss someones work entirely on the basis of their sex. Though as a Potterhead I know there has to be something to it - even Joanne Rowling had to change her name to J.K.Rowling because her publishers said boys won’t buy books written by girls. But at least those were kids - I can’t apply the same logic to adults and theatre. I saw Sondheim at the NT earlier this evening and I got talking to a friend afterwards about female composers and deciding that it’s strange a female composer has never really emerged as a household name as familiar as Hammerstein, Sondheim, Lloyd-Weber. Even Sondheim name dropped a lot of his writing collaborators and as far as I recall they were all men too. Primarily subconscious bias I think. I am sure the National Theatre literary department would just judge the hundred of scripts they get on just one criteria. You are wrong. You seem very "sure" about things you have zero experience of.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 30, 2019 11:20:47 GMT
I am very “sure” the big producing houses won’t pass over a great script because they are written by a lady, that even comes with zero experience.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 30, 2019 11:23:02 GMT
Great promotion for both and meets the National equality targets.
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Mar 30, 2019 12:01:34 GMT
Women make up 50% of the population. It's insane how much of a disparity there is, and the idea that gender equality is a one-off thing, that they can cart a load of "lady writers" in for one season before returning to business as usual shows how deeply entrenched sexism is. The demographics of the population mean precisely nothing in a niche like playwriting. If scripts are judged on merit and not quotas and tokenism then this is going to happen occasionally. Sometimes, as in last season, the majority of the writers will be women. In others, most will be men. It might even occur that it just so happens that they are all one or the other! It is one season, take it easy. Now I know it's hard to be level headed with the media whipping everyone into a frenzy but you have built up something like a conspiracy theory untroubled by facts or evidence. Tempting as it might be to join the outrage bandwagon to feel like a part of something, it's important to take a step back and be objective. Primarily subconscious bias I think. Ah, it always comes down to these vague, nebulous, unfalsifiable notions, doesn't it? The kind that can be used to support or dismiss anything.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Mar 30, 2019 12:37:59 GMT
Scripts are not chosen based on merit, and the well-studied and researched concept of "subconscious bias" is neither nebulous nor unverifiable. I am very “sure” the big producing houses won’t pass over a great script because they are written by a lady, that even comes with zero experience. Your posts are very sweet, but incredibly naive. The chance of a script by an inexperienced female writer even being read is slim. Only a handful of theatres have truly open submission policies (the Court does, of course) but generally they won't programme work by a writer unfamiliar to them, regardless of quality. That's simply not how programming works.
|
|
2,345 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 30, 2019 12:42:37 GMT
At least they haven't got the bridge theatres 'literary department '...
|
|
1,904 posts
|
Post by sf on Mar 30, 2019 13:39:58 GMT
At least they haven't got the bridge theatres 'literary department '... To be fair to the Bridge, the best thing I've seen there was written by a woman. Or rather, adapted by a woman from a novel written by another woman.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 14:36:26 GMT
Joanne Rowling had to change her name to J.K.Rowling because her publishers said boys won’t buy books written by girls So why did my generation, boys and girls, buy so much Enid Blyton, Betsy Byars, Gene Kemp etc? Because they were amazingly well-written stories. My argument is that the barriers for female writers must therefore have grown higher far more recently than people suspect, perhaps as a backlash to the growing equality movement? Just a thought. And one other thought, the Margaret Atwood evening in September has to be about the fastest selling NT Live ever, surely? But even further back we have the Brontë sisters publishing work under male pseudonyms. I can’t imagine kids were aware of equality movement in the 90s when Harry Potter first appeared either. It is interesting JKR chose a male pseudonym when she started writing her Strike novel series - do male writers sell more detective novels than women? I’ve no idea. I would however argue quality wins out. Harry Potter sort of sold well, and I was obsessed with Enid Blyton in the mid 90s - my primary school librarian (who was also an old family friend) used to try her best to get me to read something other than The Famous Five or Secret Seven - when I finished them all, I’d just go back to the start and do it all again (with a break for Dahl in the middle).
|
|
2,520 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on Mar 30, 2019 14:38:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 14:48:32 GMT
That’s a pretty good ‘thanks, but you’re wrong’ letter.
Side note - I hate left justification.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 15:54:41 GMT
That’s a pretty good ‘thanks, but you’re wrong’ letter. Side note - I hate left justification. He's not wrong though... The National has done an incredible amount of work ensuring female playwrights and directors are given an opportunity to showcase their ability hitherto not offered at our national Theatre. However, some people are so set on their course of identify politics that they can't take a step back and acknowledge when there has been progress. I'm not a huge fan of Norris but he has made a huge difference to diversity and I personally think, though accept that others may disagree, that it is disappointing that he has been forced to defend his track record because others can't be bothered to check it for themselves.
|
|
6,285 posts
|
Post by Jon on Mar 30, 2019 16:23:38 GMT
So why did my generation, boys and girls, buy so much Enid Blyton, Betsy Byars, Gene Kemp etc? Because they were amazingly well-written stories. My argument is that the barriers for female writers must therefore have grown higher far more recently than people suspect, perhaps as a backlash to the growing equality movement? Just a thought. And one other thought, the Margaret Atwood evening in September has to be about the fastest selling NT Live ever, surely? But even further back we have the Brontë sisters publishing work under male pseudonyms. I can’t imagine kids were aware of equality movement in the 90s when Harry Potter first appeared either. It is interesting JKR chose a male pseudonym when she started writing her Strike novel series - do male writers sell more detective novels than women? I’ve no idea. I would however argue quality wins out. Harry Potter sort of sold well, and I was obsessed with Enid Blyton in the mid 90s - my primary school librarian (who was also an old family friend) used to try her best to get me to read something other than The Famous Five or Secret Seven - when I finished them all, I’d just go back to the start and do it all again (with a break for Dahl in the middle). I think JK picked a male pseudonym as I suspect had she picked a female one, it would have sussed a lot sooner.
|
|
4,637 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Mar 30, 2019 16:40:12 GMT
I don't get why people want Norris to step down, it's like hoping for someone to lose their job which is not on at all. He's not been a huge success but few of the previous incumbents got of to a great start and there were questions about their position for most for the first couple of years of their reigns. Norris has been in the job exactly 4 years. So only one year to go till the end of his initial contract which I assume was the usual 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 17:29:57 GMT
He's not been a huge success but few of the previous incumbents got of to a great start and there were questions about their position for most for the first couple of years of their reigns. Norris has been in the job exactly 4 years. So only one year to go till the end of his initial contract which I assume was the usual 5 years. Is it 4 years already? I went to the Hynther farewell talk and time certainly flies, it doesn't seem that long ago. I suspect they'll look at the finances and tip their hats to him. Financially there's few who can deny he hasn't been successful and that, rightly or wrongly, is what he will be judged on.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Mar 30, 2019 20:47:10 GMT
Now I know it's hard to be level headed with the media whipping everyone into a frenzy but you have built up something like a conspiracy theory untroubled by facts or evidence. Tempting as it might be to join the outrage bandwagon to feel like a part of something, it's important to take a step back and be objective. Lol. The idea that this is simply an objective question of 'facts and evidence' and the way that you dismiss others' views in such a condescending manner says more about you than it does of anyone else, or the issue at hand. The reality is that, whether you consider this season as 'just another season' or as part of the last few decades at the NT isn't simply a question of objective 'facts or evidence', but a subjective reflection of how you put this season into the wider context, and how you feel about the NT's statements. Further, condescendingly suggesting that anyone worried about diversity is simply naively whipped up by the media or blindly joining some outrage is one thing. But it's inevitably those who shout "It's just one (more) all-male season, calm down, there's no conspiracy here" that are the first who can't comprehend any explanation other than tokenism/SJW or "diversity for it's own sake" whenever the stars align in a different direction. For example, your statement that "What is the purpose of having all women of colour, other than as a marketing gimmick?" in the discussion about Richard II at the Globe. If you're unable to even comprehend any possible artistic reason for such a choice, then perhaps you're not as coolly objective as you'd like to be. The demographics of the population mean precisely nothing in a niche like playwriting. Sure, except that the people who want to go into a field now are partially a reflection of the people that they saw in that field before. So the notion that fewer people in one demographic might *currently* be interested/applying to join a topic isn't in-and-of-itself proof that everything is fine. Of course, one might discuss whether or not it makes sense to have a 'goal' for the demographics of the population of every, say, career to reflect the overall population, but again that's not simply about objective 'facts or evidence' but also a question of the society that we want.
|
|
2,345 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 31, 2019 10:55:29 GMT
Seems reasonable
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2019 13:16:25 GMT
Oh, is that just the same one David shared? I thought it was an extra follow-up or something.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Mar 31, 2019 13:16:45 GMT
Measured response.
The issue with the "surely plays should be judged on merit" argument is that it ignores the reality of how plays get produced. Almost all productions at major theatres are the result of commissions (or transfers or co-productions). It's incredibly rare for a major production house to greenlight an unsolicited script. Even if an unsolicited script does spark interest, plays go through years of workshopping and R&D before they're actually put on.
The NT Studio (the NT's new play pathway) commissions 65-70 new plays a year (and at any time will also have around 80 other new plays in some stage of development). Only a handful will ever make it to stage. What do you think the chances are that a non-commissioned spec script by a new writer will be able to leapfrog ahead of those 150 plays, plus anything new from the likes of Hare and Graham et al, plus all the plays sent in from the hundreds of playwrights they have preexisting relationships with?
The point of unsolicited submission policies or windows is not to find plays to produce. The reason new writing theatres read unsolicited submissions is so they can meet and start to build relationships with new and emerging writers, with the hope that one day years down the line that relationship will result in a commission. The reason writers submit spec scripts is the same. It's intended as a calling card and a foot in the door, nothing more. Unless a script wins a major award, the only realistic way to get a non-commissioned play on is to get funding and self-produce on the festival circuit or somewhere like Park, Kings Head or TS.
So the issue is not "how do theatres judge plays that have already been written." The issue is "how do theatres decide which playwrights to commission."
|
|