562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Oct 20, 2019 2:07:59 GMT
Wow. This was really rather good. It’s difficult to say much without spoiling the central conceit (although in my opinion the press photos and [wonderful] poster give the game away too much). However, I thought this was a clever, exciting, fun and funny way of making a play out of an unfinished Jane Austen story. Full of smart gags, Austen’s sharp wit, and lots of in-jokes, this will have you laughing away, even if your only experience is catching Pride and Prejudice on tv. The second half perhaps didn’t quite meet the excellence of the first, but it was still enjoyable, and the play ended in what felt like an appropriately optimistic & expansive way. The acting was uniformly great, and I also really loved the staging, which surprisingly rarely felt constricted by the small Menier stage. Media that take the approach of being about the creative process can risk feeling too self absorbed and naval gazing, especially when writers write ‘themselves’ into their art but I think The Watsons balanced this pretty well. While it wasn’t quite as smart or inventive as the meta-heights hit by the likes of Charlie Kaufman, Kurt Vonnegut or Grant Morrison, or as exhilarating as last year’s An Octoroon, this was certainly worth the trip to the theatre. A solid four stars for me.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Oct 14, 2019 11:11:31 GMT
Public booking as of 09:00. Perfectly fine. Absolutely can't wait for this in late April.
If you don't 'get' ballet then this is the one - he usually sits between classical and bonkers contemporary. His recent Giselle was unforgettable
This is a world premiere so we don't know for sure but, honestly, Akram Khan is worth a shot.
Absolutely agree that Creature is worth a look even for anyone who thinks ballet isn't for them. For anyone on the fence, there's a trailer as well as extended clips online for Giselle, which should give an idea of what to expect
As well as choreographer Khan and the ENB, I'm pretty sure Creature has the same key team (designer, composer & dramaturge) as Giselle, so presumably the feel will be similar. My only slight worry is that my expectations are sky high.
More broadly, the upcoming season at Sadlers Wells looks really exciting. Full of interesting sounding stuff from Tanztheater Wuppertal, Birmingham Royal Ballet, another performance of Pina Bausch's Rite of Spring, and new pieces from Michael Keegan-Dolan and the lady who did the wonderful Rain to Steve Reich's Pulse.
However, the thing I'm most excited for, even above Creature, is Crystal Pite & Jonathon Young's new piece Revisor . I didn't see their previous piece Betroffenheit until it was online, and really regret not going to see it. Dark, moody, at times emotional & nightmarish and at other times viscerally exhilarating, it reminded me a lot of David Lynch.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Oct 11, 2019 7:43:57 GMT
Was very lucky this morning. Ended up with a low queue number (~30s) and managed to get some decent cheap seats for Welkin and Seven Streams of River Ota. The seat selection definitely felt better than for the Advanced Booking last week. When I finished my transaction a few minutes ago, there were still some £30 tickets for River Ota. They are mostly in the slips, but a few dates had £30 seats in the first few rows. Good luck to everyone still looking.
edit: One minor thing for anyone looking for tickets. The price range shown in the 'change date' drop-down menu on the webpages for specific shows is wrong. It looks like they order the seat prices based solely on the first digits, so if a performance has £30, £90 and £125 tickets left, this is written as "£125 - £90" instead of "£30 - £125".
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Oct 3, 2019 16:35:40 GMT
That time of year has come again. Best of luck to anyone trying today and/or Sunday.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Oct 3, 2019 13:05:50 GMT
(edit: and talking about doing stupid things in public, I've just realised that I've responded to a message from a year ago)... LOL. What worries me about both this and "Dragon's Den" is that youngsters especially think that business is done by shouting and flapping around and begging for cash and it all happens in a few minutes. None of that is true, but TV makes it seem so. Definitely.
I'd imagine that looking into how reality tv has influenced society as whole is probably quite a long & depressing thread to pull. I wonder how reality tv has influenced society's perception of relationships over the last decade or so. Presumably people are studying this sort of thing, similar to how people look into the impact of porn on youngster's expectations of sex.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Oct 3, 2019 11:44:34 GMT
Octopus is the new chicken, is all I can say. I do agree with BB that it is edited to make people look stupid, but then, if you really were as astute a business person as they claim to be, what are you doing competing on TV for investment anyway? I completely agree. I don't watch too many reality shows these days, and I'm sure that's in the editing but they seem to be filled with people who have never actually seen the show they are on. The level of self belief (or ignorance) that must be needed to watch a show like The Apprentice and think it's a good idea to apply is crazy.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that some of the contestants come out positively, in terms of career, money or public status. However, given that the contestants on the Apprentice purport to be successful businesspeople anyway, I don't get why any would risk that for a small chance of a financial reward, especially when the potential downsides are pretty big and long-term. Given how much is in the control of the show's producers & editors, I have little doubt that some of those who come across on telly as particularly horrible or stupid are actually fine or smart.
(edit: and talking about doing stupid things in public, I've just realised that I've responded to a message from a year ago)...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Oct 3, 2019 11:27:10 GMT
Wow. It's certainly not going to be for everyone, but I'm really excited for a chance to see The Sunset Limited.
Given the set up is simply two people having an increasingly tense, heated (and unsubtle) discussion in an apartment, I guess the success will largely depend on which two actors are brought in. The television adaptation has Samuel L Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones, both in cracking form from what I can remember, so the bar is pretty high.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Sept 25, 2019 8:28:32 GMT
(I know this is a few years old but couldn’t find a thread for it)
Wow. By turns dark, brooding, emotional, and at other points absolutely exhilarating. It seemed a great balance between the dancing, set, lighting and costumes. The narrative was, I suppose, confusing in parts, but it was a fantastic visceral experience. I’ve not seen a traditional version of this piece, so while I really enjoyed this I don’t know if the additional context would improve the experience.
This is probably not going to be for everyone, but the clips online give a good idea of the feel of it. So if you watch the trailer online and think you’ll like it you probably will. Definitely worth a trip to Sadlers Wells. I can’t wait for the upcoming new Akram Khan ENB piece ‘Creature’.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Sept 24, 2019 10:25:08 GMT
Do Brexiteers still like parliamentary sovereignty? No doubt we're not long from another 'Enemy of the people'-type story. It's sad that some can't seem to recognise that not everything should be considered solely in terms of brexit; ignoring the fact that government behaviour now will set the precedent for what's acceptable for the long-term.
On a side note, Boris' losing streak can't really be described as 'strong' but the consistency technically could be framed as 'stable' I suppose...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Sept 22, 2019 18:18:30 GMT
What’s everyone’s thoughts on ticket availability for Seven Streams? I imagine that the 7 hour runtime will put a few people off, but there are so few performances that I’m considering upgrading from Advanced to Priority membership to improve my chances.
I know no one will know for certain, but anyone have an inkling on this? How was the ticketing for Anna (more performances, but it only had a limited proportion of the Dorfman seats)? Is there a decent proportion of tickets sold at the different levels to make it worth it, or are most tickets held back for the public sale?
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Sept 10, 2019 15:58:22 GMT
I enjoyed the show, but balked at the prices for this when tickets went on sale, and am slightly regretting my decision.
I know that chances for tickets are vanishingly slim now, but I've been keeping half an eye on the DMT site since the odd seat seems to pop up every now and then. I assumed that these were returns, but from checking sporadically over the last week they don't really seem random enough; the same groups of ~£150 stall/royal circle seats seem to appear and disappear across multiple performances.
Does anyone know what's up with these seats on the DMT site? If these are returns (i.e. there's a chance for some cheaper seats to come up) then I'll keep looking for these last few days, but if they are something else (e.g. unwanted corporate tickets, so will always be the premium prices) then I won't bother.
Cheers,
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Sept 9, 2019 14:08:28 GMT
But we now get to decide ourselves to inflict economic harm? Which is fascinating given that the Leave campaigns promised we'd be better off outside the EU.
Now, that was obviously a barefaced lie, and the ridiculous claims about hundreds of millions a week extra for the NHS and all the rest of it were widely debunked at the time - but it was a seductive lie, and people bought it. The kind of messy, destructive scenario we're facing now was absolutely not on the table in 2016.
There was an interesting study discussed on Freakonomics a while back, talking about climate change, but I think it applies here too. Basically, they found that, rather than changing ones views in the face of new evidence, people tend to double down or reframe the narrative of their existing opinions. This, I think, explains why after the leave campaigners finally admitted that the £350 million for the NHS might be misleading (for some reason Nigel Farrage and Iain Duncan Smith didn't think to clarify this until after the referendum), rather than using this to reassess the benefits of leaving, the discussion is reframed as never really being about the money anyway. (of course, I'm not suggesting that I'm not liable to have the same sort of psychological response), but it's this sort of double think/cognitive dissonance that really gets me, I mean: - The EU is reliant on us buying German cars (etc.); but we haven’t managed to get a favourable deal in the years of negotiations, - The Irish border isn’t a problem; but mere weeks before the deadline there are no concrete plans in place, - We’re going to (or at least threaten to) renege on what we owe to the EU; but countries will still bend over backwards for a trade deal with us. - Trump has explicitly & implicitly said that he will put American interests first; and yet we’re hanging everything off being able to quickly get a trade deal that suits us, - We need to get out from under the control of the EU to put the power back into Westminster; and yet several of the regions that voted out are precisely the ones that rely on funding from the EU. And it's the same with the way that the Tories have tried to frame the rejected early election. The Tories have been running this race -one that they set in motion- for the last few years. Boris’ argument why he wasn’t ‘contemptible’ (his words) for coming to power without an election was because this is a time of national crisis. And now, after doing everything imaginable to avoid this and literal days before the deadline, he suddenly wants to pass the baton for no other reason than to save face. The idea that this can then be framed as Corbyn being ‘chicken’ is just drinking the Kool Aid to the largest degree.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Sept 6, 2019 12:26:45 GMT
Is it just me or does Johnson seem rather at a loss at present? Of course it could all be part of the ongoing 'Bumbling Boris, your pal' schtick but he genuinely seems out of sorts and blindsided by the vicissitudes of politics. Now for somebody like Trump who was a political novice that attitude was to be expected but Johnson has been in and around politics for close to three decades so it seems bizarre that he is behaving as he is. Was his privilege so ingrained that he expected everybody to just do what he said/wanted? Presumably whilst a heavenly choir serenaded. Or as I said before is this all some subterfuge? But he managed to make Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May look competent in comparison which surely can't have been the agenda. But mainly it's the public who seem to be throwing him off kilter. For years we have been told the bumbling clown act was just that, an act, and underneath beat the heart of a true master of political acumen. So, what do people think is going on? I wonder if it's not simply the slow realisation that his current situation (hated by huge portions of the population, unable to do anything he wanted to, likely to out of the job very soon, and in this bind about stating never to ask for an extension, but with no one to pick up the batton before Oct 31st) is pretty much what he's been working towards for his entire life. This short, painful few weeks will be the pinnacle of his career. I don't really see why anyone who wasn't completely deluded or happy to sacrifice themselves completely to whichver side they believe in would want to be PM right now.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Sept 5, 2019 20:31:22 GMT
Because their job is to act in the best interests of the country as a whole, not just a tranche of it. And the best interest of the country as a whole is not to create an entirely avoidable economic catastrophe by claiming people voted for a crash exit that wasn't an option on the ballot paper or a risk properly explained by those advocating leaving the EU. Parliament is entitled to correct mistaken decisions, and this is the biggest mistake in history... If I believed they were simply trying to stop no deal, I might agree with you. If I thought by blocking no deal we could still get a decent agreement with the EU, I might agree with you. That’s not what’s happening here. Some people have a mighty funny idea of democracy, that’s all I can say! The thing is that if you accept that the public voted for Brexit, but didn't vote on a No Deal leave (certainly, my view is that the public was largely being sold on 'we'll get a great deal', but I accept that's not what everyone thinks), then it's similarly true that the precise nature of any deal wasn't part of the referendum either.
Thus, even if all the MPs worked towards the goal of Brexit, we'd still get lots of different ideas of what is or isn't acceptable in any deal. And that probably reflects to some extent differences in what different Brexiteers want. I mean, I suppose as a Remainer it's easy for me to say, but I can imagine that across the general public who voted (and still want) Brexit, there'll be wildly differing views on the things like the Irish border, the likelyhood of Scottish independence, how money might be redistributed, our ongoing agreements with the EU, any final exit payments to the EU and so on.
And that's before we even get to the fact that the EU will have their own interests too.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Sept 4, 2019 16:47:18 GMT
In all honesty, I think it's unfortunate that the photo of JRM is getting so much traction. For now, there's the none-too-subtle message behind the memes, which is arguably a good thing. However, I suspect that this is just preaching to the converted. And pretty soon all that will be left is something that can be framed (to those who don't already know what kind of person he is) as a photo of someone sticking it to those snobs in parliament.
In any case, rather than being 'slumped from not caring', the photo looks (at least to me) like someone trying desperately hard to look carefree. Like that etonian equivalent of the sweaty, awkward & slightly creepy guy at the back of the party silently drinking beers by themselves, who imagines themselves as being some cool, intense & detached Clint Eastwood type.
Anyhow, if you want a picture of Jacob showing his contempt for the nation and parliament, any photo will do. It really doesn't need to be of him slouching like a child.
|
|
562 posts
|
Brexit
Aug 31, 2019 17:32:56 GMT
Post by jadnoop on Aug 31, 2019 17:32:56 GMT
I know this is said in jest, but just in case... I don't know much about the power industry, but I use some of the associated data with work. If anyone's interested in digging into this further and, in particular, understanding the annual make-up of the energy sector then DUKES ( the Digest of UK Energy Statistics) is probably the go-to resource. Depending on your background it may be a bit of a slog to begin with, but they do pretty comprehensive annual reports which tend to have a short abstract/summary at the beginning before diving into everything more deeply. They also have a lot of data that's well labelled and easily downloadable. Of course this is just the underlying data, so doesn't comment on things like the potential impact of Brexit, but it will probably give a more comprehensive and understandable picture of the UK energy sector than the previous website. And, while I'm here, in terms of the recent discussions about surveying. There's a fantastic recent book by David Spiegelhalter which might be of interest. It has just about the least exciting name I can imagine ( The Art of Statistics: Learning From Data), but it covers a lot of this stuff in a surprisingly readable way, with lots of examples. (I'm not associated with this book in any way, so I'm not shilling)
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 31, 2019 10:01:00 GMT
I've just seen that my label thing on the left now says that I'm a senior member. Presumably it's just because I passed some threshold of time spent on the board, or number of comments, but I like to think that a secret cabal of the highest echelon of TheatreBoard elite meet every full moon and voted.
I'm glad to have joined many of you already there, and can't wait to see what the secret rituals and undoubtedly high financial perks are!
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 31, 2019 9:25:56 GMT
Are you sure it’s just the DM being dodgy about presenting the results? Because by saying what you do in 2, you’re conveniently ignoring the other results within the poll that show the Tories ahead of Labour, a majority of respondents thinking Johnson is doing a good job, Johnson streets ahead in the best PM question, a majority of respondents not wanting to delay Brexit (which the Johnson naysayers are arguing was his reason for extending a typical parliamentary break at this time of year) and only a 1% difference between supporting/opposing the prorogation. Of course I have personal biases. We all do. But I spent a few minutes writing a post on a messageboard to highlight some of the biases in the article you chose to link to instead of going to the original source. The DM spent (presumably) a decent amount of time to present the results of the survey they commissioned to millions of readers. I imagined it was implicit but if not: no, my comment was not intended to be a neutral and complete summary of the survey. Indeed, I even ended my comment with an explicit suggestion that readers go to the original source (and as implied by your comment, the DM didn't bother with that). If you want to describe this as 'dodgy' then fair enough. If the respondents were outraged by Johnson’s actions, these numbers should look VERY different. Again, if 3 is true, you might expect the anti Brexit parties to be further ahead in the voting intention polls. 'If they were true', 'the numbers should look different'? What are you talking about? The numbers in the survey are what they are, and the internal inconsistencies simply represent of the complexities & inconsistencies of the people being surveyed. If your argument is that the results might not represent the wider population, or might not tally other surveys carried out at different times, well of course, what do you expect? Scaling a survey of 1,020 people to the entire population is hugely difficult and problematic, especially when it comes to entirely qualitative & subjective issues like Brexit. And believe it or not, people's views & answers change over time, they depend on the phrasing on the questions, and by recent events, and so on. So it's hardly surprising that there will be inconsistencies. But either you take the survey as it is (just a survey of only 1,020 people on a complicated topic), or you acknowledge that the small sample size, hugely divisive topic, and timing of the survey mean that it's just a fuzzy snapshot which can't readily be assumed to represent the wider population. Either way, you can't simply treat one portion of the answers as true and then say that other questions aren't true because they're different from the ones you've decided are correct. I can’t see the full Survation results in a Google search to tell if the DM have ignored a question included in the poll, but would happily read if you can provide a link. The data is available from the Survation twitter account. It includes the aggregated results for each question, split by key demographics. The results are also presented both raw, as well as scaled to adjust for things like whether people say they would vote, and so on. I include a link below:
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 30, 2019 23:12:34 GMT
I completely believe that the country is closely divided. But the main thing your link really shows (unsurprisingly) is quite how untrustworthy the DM is: 1. The headline notes that “most voters think the Queen was RIGHT to approve his request”. While technically correct, this deliberately downplays the actual important result which is that 40% thought that boris shouldn’t have prorogued vs 39% who thought that he should have. I’m sure most people are aware of the difference, but just in case; the question about the queen is about the power that the royals have, whereas the the question about Boris is about proroguing. Indeed, comparing the two results makes it clear that a lot of those who feel that Boris should not have prorogued, didn’t think it would be right for the queen to be the one to stop it. 2. The survey explicitly asked about peoples’ views about Boris’ actions and 43% felt “Suspending parliament is a constitutional outrage” compared with 40% who felt “Suspending parliament is not a constitutional”. (Plus 0.1% who thought “Boris is like Martin Luther King” apparently!) 3. The article rather conveniently ignored the result of the question: “ Imagine there was a referendum tomorrow with the question 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' How would you vote?” for which the answer was 50% remain, 45% leave. I’m sure there’s more, but all the data is online so I’d suggest anyone interested look it up directly rather than rely on the Daily Mail’s unsurprisingly questionable write-up.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 30, 2019 20:11:15 GMT
We have a deadline to leave and it has been put back 7 months by some self serving politicians. Now a failed PM and busybody Windy Miller are going to court. Hopefully someone like Farage could launch a counter court action against the agitators. Boris has the balls and the vision to take us out of the EU and it was fitting he made his prorogation decision 56 years to the day that MLK made his similarly historic I have a dream speech. Typically we ha have had professional lackey and never elected Lord Adonis talking about another referendum luckily Martine Croxall rubbished his claims.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 25, 2019 0:48:09 GMT
Wow. This was an thought-provoking, funny and very dense piece and well worth a watch.
Set in the estate of an ex-plantation in Southern USA, the play was about family relationships, secrets & lies, the stories we tell ourselves and, most of all, how much our past defines who we are. Add to this a smidge of the gothic/supernatural and, in less capable hands, the play might easily have crumbled under the weight of the subject matters. However, this piece just flew along, propelled by a well-balanced sense of humour, universally excellent performances and a wonderful design. In many ways this felt like an interesting counterpoint to Annie Baker’s excellent John at the NT a couple of years ago.
If I have one reservation about the play it was the choice & treatment of Frank’s secret past. No spoilers but, for me, the topic was just too big to be pushed into a play already bulging at the seams. And, frankly, the way that it finally came to light (through a misunderstanding straight from a bawdy comedy) felt like a tonal misstep. However, this was a minor niggle in an otherwise great play.
All in all this was very good. For me, it didn’t quite reach the inventive and exciting heights of An Octoroon, but still very highly recommended. You’ll walk out with lots to discuss.
A final comment on seating. The stage is framed by two large-ish columns on either side. The people seated in the leftmost seats in the stalls (41/42) clearly missed important bits (when actors were towards the back of the stage you could see them trying & failing to look around the column on their side).
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 11, 2019 9:20:09 GMT
Finally got round to seeing this and, as noted by Xanderl I did feel it might have been more effective in a smaller venue, and there were a fair few empty seats when I went (Saturday). However, this was exciting, energetic, funny, and touched on hugely important topics, I thought this was great. I also felt this play brilliantly balanced the connectedness between the scenes in the different locations; linked enough to provide the narrative and thematic threads, but not so joined as to feel contrived. Not much more to say, except that I’m very tempted to go again.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 11, 2019 9:12:32 GMT
Finally saw this on the last night. Staging and performances were amazing but I found it all a bit disappointing. It's FAR too long - could have dropped most of the early childhood stuff for Hortense which had no real bearing on what came next, and also most of Queenie's back-story about pig-farming in Lincolnshire and working in a sweetshop. That would have shaved a good half hour off. And also if it's 3 hours 20 minutes, start the evening show at 7 not 7:30. And as noted above I have reservations about the fact that a story about black experiences of immigration written by a black novelist has been filtered through a white playwright. Presumably Andrea Levy was OK with the choice (although not sure at what point her health problems started so she may not have been particularly involved) I don't know about cutting the backstory I think it's pretty important character stuff and cutting it down to just saying essentially "Hortense was in love with this guy" and "Queenie really wanted to move away from home" wouldn't be enough to fully understand their motivations or perhaps fully appreciate would be the better term since they're very simple motivations. I don't think that simply saying would be enough to show why Hortense has grown up so prim and proper and pretty rude (and her unrequited love would be less tragic) or why Queenie would be so desperate to marry. I agree. For me, Hortense & Queenie’s childhoods were important for providing context on things like their views on, and experience of, love, and the expectations put on them by family. Those scenes were also v important to showing why they wanted to move to England / a bigger town, and what they expected to find there. While it didn’t register hugely for me at first, those early scenes also set up the topics of adoption and parenting, that the play wrapped back to at the end. Perhaps these scenes could have been shortened and had the same effect, but I enjoyed them anyway and I liked that boarding the Windrush was more-or-less the play’s halfway point.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 7, 2019 10:33:18 GMT
Wow. This was really rather special.
Great acting, an interesting, engaging (and hugely timely) story, and it excellently balanced the seriousness of the story with a sense of humour. I also loved the visuals (beautiful moving paintings and echoes of Emma Rice’s Brief Encounter) and use of music.
I’ve read a lot about plays not working in the Olivier but this really felt like a perfect fit to me. It might not have been as wildly exciting or unpredictable as some of what’s shown on the Dorfman, but it felt brilliantly suited to a big stage and a wide audience. Like a big prestige film by Steven Spielberg.
I really hope this gets a longer life.
A solid 4 and a half stars.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Aug 2, 2019 14:56:05 GMT
Managed to snag a couple of Friday Rush tickets, so really excited to see this next week. For anyone still looking there are a couple of seats still available.
|
|
562 posts
|
Cheese
Jul 15, 2019 11:00:50 GMT
Post by jadnoop on Jul 15, 2019 11:00:50 GMT
As someone trying my best to eat healthier, this is a difficult thread to read. I'd say at the moment Comte and Binham Blue are firm favourites. Although, as you say, a nice chunk of fried Halloumi is difficult to beat.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 10, 2019 18:46:42 GMT
jadnoop you can’t blame social media or the board for this. There’d be nothing for us to jump to conclusions about - rightly or wrongly - without seriously aggrieved collaborators willing to put their reputations and financial security on the line. No-one does that for fun. That the YV and Green Door eventually managed to do a bit of half-decent PR doesn’t change the fact that it shouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. The issues are outside of our control, but how we react -whether we choose to jump to conclusions or wait for more information- is absolutely each of our own responsibilities. And surely, all else being equal, making informed judgements is better than jumping to conclusions(?) I mean, you could make your argument about just about any 'crime' but the entire point of a fair justice system is to be as objective as possible and give each party the chance to respond, rather than to jump to conclusions based on the notion of 'there's no smoke without fire'.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 10, 2019 16:32:13 GMT
Yes, that is a far better response. It's a bit too late to dispel the bad feeling around the production, however, and does fail to grasp that there's a larger issue here about how collaborative workshop and development processes work within the industry. With all due respect it’s only ‘a bit too late’ because people feel the need to firmly pick a side on things well before all the facts are known. I mean, acknowledging now that things may not be black & white is all good and well, but the board consensus was pretty immediate despite there being nothing to go on beyond a blog and some tweets (all biased). Much of the board were happy to comment and like boycotting the YV, state how ‘clear’ it was that credit and/or financial recompense should be given, and decided that Idris and Kwame weren’t giving their side of the story (biased of course, just like everyone else’s versions of events) but ‘justifying plagiarism’. It may well turn out that the YV is at fault here (whether ethically or legally), but that doesn’t change the fact that the board had made up its mind very quickly. And the jokes elsewhere on this thread about the scandal being more exciting than the play would be funnier, if it weren’t for the fact that by jumping on board before all the facts were known, social media like TB is complicit in the impact of the scandal in the first place.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 5, 2019 8:44:27 GMT
Payment system seems to be up the spout at the moment.
eta .... and breathe!
If you're hitting 'buy' and keep getting the 'something has gone wrong please try again in a few minutes' error screen then it might be worth calling the NT. I had that happen a week or so ago, and it turned out that the first error put the money on hold on my card (like hotels I think). This meant that subsequent attempts were rejected as suspicious. On the positive side though it meant that the NT website saved the seats (and for longer than the ~30 mins booking time), so I could pick them up again when I called.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 5, 2019 8:35:39 GMT
When you suggest that someone else did or said something “in order to X” you’re talking about their underlying motivations behind the words; not just the words themselves. Being 100% sure on that is mind reader territory. Well, no. All I have to go on is what they chose to write, which doesn't leave a great deal of room for interpretation. Both posts read as being rather condescending to the two women, and the tone of both posts is one of self-righteous self-justification. Both Mr. Kwei-Armah and Mr. Elba chose, one must assume, the statements they put together in response to Ms. Allen-Martin and Ms. Henley's Medium article, and both of them invoked the trauma of bereavement in a way that leaves little room for any conclusion other than that they were playing for sympathy. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not minimising the impact of a bereavement. I'm in the middle of it myself, and it's not a pleasant experience. It is also, though, absolutely NOT a mitigating factor in a case like this, and it is simply not relevant to the question of whether Ms. Allen-Martin and Ms. Henley's work has been used without proper credit/payment.
Look, I'm not trying to get into a long argument with a stranger on the internet. Clearly this is a difference of opinion that doesn't have a conclusion. And it's certainly not my intention to have a go at someone in the middle of very difficult times. So my apologies and I'm bowing out of this thread.
|
|