214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Nov 9, 2022 19:18:19 GMT
"I also suspect that many theatregoers who use wheelchairs would feel terribly uncomfortable if it was made to seem that their presence was preventing a standing ovation." In fact, I am sure that all wheelchair-users absolutely hate it when any consideration at all is shown for them and would be much happier if, for instance, if organisations didn't feel they had to provide ramps or lifts for access, dedicated parking facilities, and so forth. They are much more comfortable being disadvantaged. So that's all right, then. My goodness! What an awful amount of effort you put into twisting my words there! No doubt a day well spent. There is, of course, a great difference between providing lifts and ramps to accommodate a theatregoer in a wheelchair, and instructing other audience members that they must not stand in the event of a standing ovation just in case they block someone's view. Not only that, it is also impossible to police. In the middle of a loud standing ovation at the end of a particularly lively show I would not like to be the usher in charge of telling everyone to sit down.I didn't twist your words. You suspect that people in wheelchairs would "feel terribly uncomfortabloe" if people like you had sufficient consideration for those in wheelchairs NOT to block their view by jumping to your feet. I, developing your line of thought, postulated that the same wheelchair people who would hate it if you had consideration for them may also be "terribly uncomfortable" about other forms of consideration being given to wheelchair users. Same line of thought. As for policing, a start could be made if (1) theatre management made an announcement reqauesting no standing ovations, and (2) people like you started to set a good example by curbing your itch to leap to your feet. But you're not considerate enough to do that, are you?
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Nov 9, 2022 19:11:24 GMT
Really, though, there is precious little moral difference between people rising to their feet to applaud, thus blocking the view of the finale and bows for the people behind, and (to mention something that annoys a lot of people on this board) a drunken hen party singing along and waving their arms and so forth. What a ridiculous statement. If it's ridiculous, it should be very easy for you to point out the significant difference between: 1. Drunk women singing and clapping away and thereby spoiling your enjoyment of the show. 2. You leaping to your feet to clap and applaud and thereby spoiliung the enjuoyment of the people behind you. But there isn't a significant difference. They are both selfish inconsiderate behaviour.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Nov 8, 2022 9:20:44 GMT
At the Garrick yesterday, I was in the last (fifth) row of the Dress Circle next to a gentleman in a wheelchair in the central space reserved for that. I thought it was poor that he missed the finale of the show because of people ovating in the rows in front. I see the problem though. If the people in row D had remained seated, they would have missed it too. It required all four rows in front to be aware of the situation and show some self-restraint. Perhaps some notices on those seats from the theatre when the wheelchair position is in use would not go amiss? I think it's a bit impractical to tell audiences that they have to stay seated during a standing ovation because of who may be sat behind them. It's an unfortunate circumstance but we can't police everything I'm afraid. I also suspect that many theatregoers who use wheelchairs would feel terribly uncomfortable if it was made to seem that their presence was preventing a standing ovation. "I also suspect that many theatregoers who use wheelchairs would feel terribly uncomfortable if it was made to seem that their presence was preventing a standing ovation." In fact, I am sure that all wheelchair-users absolutely hate it when any consideration at all is shown for them and would be much happier if, for instance, if organisations didn't feel they had to provide ramps or lifts for access, dedicated parking facilities, and so forth. They are much more comfortable being disadvantaged. So that's all right, then.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Nov 8, 2022 9:13:39 GMT
I'm afraid that standing ovations are part of the modern selfishness. Given that the first recorded standing ovation happened at the premiere of Handel's Messiah in 1743, calling it modern selfishness is pushing it a bit.. Really? Wasn't that something different, nanmely, standing for the Hallelujah! Chorus? Yes, there have always been standing ovations for the truly, truly exceptional. But the modern fad for them, where people go to the theatre looking forward to participating in standing ovations, regarding their own applause as part of the show, seems to owe a lot to those TV talent shows, where producers get audiences to stand because it looks awfully good on TV, a whole audience rising to its feet. I think some people are nowe getting the idea that if yuou applaud, you've got to stand to do it. Really, though, there is precious little moral difference between people rising to their feet to applaud, thus blocking the view of the finale and bows for the people behind, and (to mention something that annoys a lot of people on this board) a drunken hen party singing along and waving their arms and so forth.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Nov 7, 2022 17:17:01 GMT
At the Garrick yesterday, I was in the last (fifth) row of the Dress Circle next to a gentleman in a wheelchair in the central space reserved for that. I thought it was poor that he missed the finale of the show because of people ovating in the rows in front. I see the problem though. If the people in row D had remained seated, they would have missed it too. It required all four rows in front to be aware of the situation and show some self-restraint. Perhaps some notices on those seats from the theatre when the wheelchair position is in use would not go amiss? I'm afraid that standing ovations are part of the modern selfishness. *I* want to leap to my feet and imagine I'm participating in something with those folk on the stage, and I don't give a d*** about the folk behind me, whether they want to stand or not, whether they can stand or not. I am so very, very special, you see.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 30, 2020 20:38:49 GMT
In the Craig Revel Horwood tour, in which they looked like they'd been purchased from the S&M department at Poundland.
The whole thing looked and felt like some creepy Alpine fetishists convention. A couple of good performances but otherwise it was seriously underpowered and over perved. I thought the musical numbers looked as if they were being staged as self-contained videos.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 29, 2020 12:35:13 GMT
Then it came to be that there were dungarees with glittery butterflies attached, for girls, and dungarees with racing cars and footballs attached, for boys. (Patches fceaturing those things, obviously...) Yes - I get the feeling it started as a cunning plan to stop kids sharing or handing down toys and making parents have to buy everything twice! And I can sort of glimpse that, if you were a boy that didn't have much time for conventional boy stuff like footballs and racing cars, you might feel it a bit alien to present yourself in that garb, posing as what you're not, and if you don't distinguish between mere conventions and reality, that could segue into "I'm not a boy." I'm old enough to remember boys wearing long hair in the 1970s and the number of cries there were of "Looks like a girl."
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 29, 2020 11:02:28 GMT
Totally normal experiences of growing up - so many girls have a passionate sparkles-and-pink-dresses phase that they just as passionately reject a couple of years later! - turned into an identity crisis. It's a very telling piece - I think for many kids this is the fall-out from the pink and blue aisles toyshops started bringing in about 20 years ago, to the horror of many women, especially feminists (I remember writing to a middle class catalogue I'd been sent for listing nature kits and building toys on pages designated 'for boys' and endless manicure, glitter and beautification crap on the pages 'for girls'.). And I really think the role of fanfiction and fansites hasn't been properly looked into for its role in shaping these teenagers' thinking. I noticed a few years ago that many at the younger end were starting to call themselves 'trans' - my initial thought was, are these particular fandoms very appealing to that group, in the way that Doctor Who had a very gay fandom, but there were so very many that it was clear there was something else going on. And I do think it has a similar pattern to the surge then clampdown on 'pro-ana' sites: chest-binding has come in to fill that space for teenage girls uncomfortable with their changing bodies and the attention and expectations they bring. Good point. Someone whose son is now in his thirties told me that when he was a toddler, things like dungarees for kids were unsexed and she and other mothers passed them around to each other as the kids grew. Then it came to be that there were dungarees with glittery butterflies attached, for girls, and dungarees with racing cars and footballs attached, for boys. (Patches fceaturing those things, obviously...)
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 28, 2020 19:54:01 GMT
And many of their posts seem to prioritise the interests of *women* rather than gay people, which could lead those with a mind to embrace conspiracy theories to think that the LGBA is merely a front organisation for certain women's groups, designed to capitalise on the legitimate concerns of gay people like me not to be rebanded "LGBT". Genuine question - because as a straight woman who doesn’t follow the LGB Alliance, I’m not in a position to know - might it be because up to now, lesbians have tended to bear the brunt of the radical side of the trans lobby? (As in: “if I am a male-bodied person who identifies as a lesbian woman, you should be as happy to have a relationship with me as with a lesbian who’s a natal woman. If not, you’re transphobic.”) I’d say that’s more an LGB specific concern than one for the more generalist women’s groups (who tend to focus more on the perceived risks of self-ID and potential losses to female achievement/representation in sports, arts and politics etc - which of course affect all natal women, whatever their sexuality)? Or is it that the LGB Alliance tend to post these generalist women’s concerns? It’s interesting - my perception so far has been that it’s mainly women who’ve spoken up against radical trans ideology (for obvious reasons; see paragraph above!). I’ve heard a couple of gay male friends (of a certain age) make comments that suggest they’re less than impressed by some things that go on in the name of the T in LGBT, but it’s really only since the tragic killings in Reading that I’ve been aware of a real outspoken-ness (if that’s a word!) from gay men generally, insisting on their right to be recognised specifically as gay. But it sounds like your perception of that may be very different, so I’m interested to hear more. Would you say some gay men have been as uncomfortable as gay and straight women over this issue for a while now? REPLY (I seem to have screwed up the replying mechanism). You may well be right that women have been at the forefront of setting up the LGBA and that as women they BOTH perceive threats to women as women AND are particularly aware of what appear to be threats to lesbians (apparently, some lesbians have got abuse for refusing to date trans women, and the LGBA thinks young lesbians are particularly liable to persuasion that they are 'really' boys). But, as I said, to be convincing as a gay rights organisation, the LGBA needs to locate its position on T within a much broader conception of gay rights and gay campaigning. That would help to defuse the common charge that it's 'just' an anti-trans group. I think, too, that the emphasis on women's sensibilities ignores men's (though I realise that women are more likely to be victims of violence from men than vice-versa). Sometimes the idea seems afloat that whereas women are rightly disturbed at male-bodied people in their changing rooms, men are insensitive clods who don't mind female-bodied persons in male changing-rooms. That idea needs questioning. My own concerns have two sources. First, as a gay man, I find it increasingly odd that i should be perpetually glued to trans people as a "LGBT person". The House of Commons recently went so far as to issue a report on "LGBT health needs", whereas I don't think I share any healthy needs with T that I don't have with the rest of the population. Moreover, I thought we were getting away from the old stereotype according to which gay men were women on the inside and lesbians thought of themselves as men, but the relentless use of the "LGBT" initialism suggests that gay and trans are fundamentally the same. I have seen a number of comments outwith the activist bubble which suggest just that misunderstanding. In the Wolfenden Report of 1957, homosexuals were treated in common with prostitutes; in the 1970s, paedophile groups tried to cloak themselves in the gay movement; then gay people were told that they were to be termed "LGBT people". Can't we ever just be ourselves? Some LGBA posts have talked of it as defending the interests of gay people, women and girls, and I worry that "LGBT" is going to be replaced by "LGBW". Second, as an ex-academic I do find myself seriously doubtful about many of things asserted by trans theorists. With me, the question, "Is there any reason to think that that is true?" usually bubbles up when I see claims like "Trans women are women" or "A woman is someone who dientifies as a woman." Some of us do care about truth simpliciter. I think there was a time when people were much less clear on the crucial difference between gay and trans. Many gay men seemed to have thought they had to act girly (see, for instance, a mid-century novel like City of Night); perhaps T people somehow felt that they had to think of themselves as basically gay, but with a sort of add-on. The differences are now clearer. On issues like shared bathrooms and changing-rooms, I have no fixed views. In any case, I think the idea that people are happy to strip off in front of their own sex needs to be looked at critically. Certainly, I loathed communal showers at my all-boy school. A bigger emphasis on cubicles for all might defuse some of the issues. On some boards I come across as a defender of T people. For instance, there is a Roman Catholic poster in The Herald (Glasgow) who repeatedly dismisses T people as mentally ill; I routinely tell him that since he believes that what is empirically bread and wine has the substance of flesh and blood, what was the problem about adapting that metaphysics to accommodate the idea that what is empircally a man might be in substance a woman?
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 27, 2020 8:39:22 GMT
Certainly right wing organisations masquerading as gay right groups like the LGB Alliance are not the way to go. Steady on. Do you really KNOW that that is true? Since I cannot understand why, as a gay man, I am now always conjoined with trans people and told I am a "LGBT person"--a conjunction which makes no more sense than saying that all single parents and all sex workers are henceforth to be dubbed "SPSW people"--I have for a long time wanted to see gay (generic) disentangled from trans. Neither my husband nor I conceives himself to belong to the other sex. We had the nonsense of the Commons Women & Equalities Committee issuing a report on "LGBT health needs", whereas I don't think i have any in common with vT people that I don't share with everyone else. So I have given a guarded welcome to the LGB Alliance. I don't think the launch has been well handled. They base their emphasis on criticism of trans activism on the claim that young gays are being steered into regarding themselves as trans. I am not in a position to say whether that's true, but at the very least I'd like to see the LGBA's position here embodied within a general manifesto of gay rights, which they have not come up with. Their banner statements of aims and objectives in terms of "same-sex attracted not same-gender attracted" are too obscure to be intelligible to the general run of people and smack of spats in inclusivity committees between activists with gender-studies degrees. And many of their posts seem to prioritise the interests of *women* rather than gay people, which could lead those with a mind to embrace conspiracy theories to think that the LGBA is merely a front organisation for certain women's groups, designed to capitalise on the legitimate concerns of gay people like me not to be rebanded "LGBT". I think there is a need for something like the LGBA, but whether it fits that need, I haven't yet made up my mind.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 27, 2020 8:29:02 GMT
I’ve seen people confuse ‘drag queen names’ with gay men actually being trans. That’s why the ‘first brick thrown at Stonewall was by’ narrative changed from being ‘a drag queen’ to ‘a trans woman’. Even though people who were there at the time say they weren’t trans. The mythologisation of Stonewall and the competition to rewrite what happened is reminiscent of the way in which the execution of a troublesome (to the authorities) rabbi c. 33AD got embodied in a world religion its gospels.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 20, 2020 13:16:40 GMT
The conflation of sexuality/sexual identity with gender/gender identity has always been problematic to my mind. They are very separate issues - and whilst there will be times when coming together to campaign makes great sense, it is not appropriate to permanently link the two things. We should all seek to support one another as much as possible - but it should be on a case by case basis and allowing for differences between various groups rather some sort of artificial universality of approach. But you aren't allowed to articulate such thinking - because you are excluding someone/being *phobic. We have seen an explosion in gender reassignment surgery in Iran being held up by a few as a wonderful example of enlightened thinking about gender - whereas the reality is that gay men are transitioning rather than face prosecution/persecution for being gay. That is not a choice any human being should be asked to consider. The risk of fusing the issues surrounding sexuality with those of gender identity is that we create confusion where we should be seeking to highlight the individual and their needs rather than rushing to uniformity. What you say in your last sentence struck home with me. I have seen and heard many things said outwith the bubble which suggest that members of the general public are getting the idea that being gay and being trans are basically the same, and I suspect that the relentless promotion of the "LGBT" initialism at least partly is to blame. Example: a journalist on the Scottish Sunday Herald, purporting to explain current controversies, said that self-declaration was coming out about your sexuality. (No, no, no.) I heard an old man ranting in the lounge of a country house hotel near Keswick: "D'you see they've got a bisexual on Last Night of the Proms?...(mutter, mutter)...Can't tell if they're a man or a woman." That sounded as if he was confusing bisexual with trans. And if you look below the line on sites like Conservative Woman or Charisma News, you'll find plenty of posters who, if it's a trans matter, start saying things about God disliking homosexuality, and, if it's about gays, will start in about men in dresses. There was a time when gay men were routinely looked upon as women manque. Mae West claimed to have stopped the police beating up gay men by telling the police that in reality they were hitting women. When I first started going about the Glasgow gay scene in the 1970s, the tradition still lingered of referring to gay men by women's names. ("Are you going to Nellie and Alice's party?" I was asked, re a party given by Neil and Allan.) I thought we'd got beyond that in the last couple of decades, but it seems to be creeping back again via the perpetual glueing together of gay and trans as "LGBT people". What was probably once just a matter of gay groups giving a bit of shelter to a different minority has now become something a lot more problematic.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 20, 2020 12:15:49 GMT
Some of us think it is very odd to glue gay people and trans people together as "LGBT" people. It makes as much sense as saying that all single parents and all sex workers are to be referred to as "SPSW people". Gay men do not think they're women. Lesbians do not identify as men. So why are they always lumped together with people who identify as belonging to the sex other than that constituted by their biology? When EastEnders first acquired a gay couple, The Sunmj printed a cartoon of Dirty Den in suspender belt and black stockings: gay men used to be seen as wanting to be women. I thought we'd got beyond that, but now it's back again, with "LGBT" implying that being gay and being trans are fundamentally the same. The conflation of sexuality/sexual identity with gender/gender identity has always been problematic to my mind. They are very separate issues - and whilst there will be times when coming together to campaign makes great sense, it is not appropriate to permanently link the two things. We should all seek to support one another as much as possible - but it should be on a case by case basis and allowing for differences between various groups rather some sort of artificial universality of approach. But you aren't allowed to articulate such thinking - because you are excluding someone/being *phobic. We have seen an explosion in gender reassignment surgery in Iran being held up by a few as a wonderful example of enlightened thinking about gender - whereas the reality is that gay men are transitioning rather than face prosecution/persecution for being gay. That is not a choice any human being should be asked to consider. The risk of fusing the issues surrounding sexuality with those of gender identity is that we create confusion where we should be seeking to highlight the individual and their needs rather than rushing to uniformity. What you say in your last sentence struck home with me. I have seen and heard many things said outwith the bubble which suggests that mambers of the general public are getting the idea that being gay and being trans are basically the same, and I suspect that the relentless promotion of the "LGBT" initialism is to blame. Example: a journalist on the Scottish Sunday Herald, purporting to explain current controversies, said that self-declaration was coming out about your sexuality. (No, no, no.) I heard an old man ranting in the lounge of a country house hotel near Keswick: "D'you see they've got a bisexual on Last Night of the Proms?...(mutter, mutter)...Can't tell if they're a man or a woman." That sounded as if he was confusing bisexual with trans. And if you look below the line on sites like Conservative Woman or Charisma News, you'll find plenty of posters who, if it's a trans matter, start saying things about God disloiking homosexuality, and, if it's about gays, will start in about men in dresses. There was a time when gay men were routinely looked upon as women manque. Mae West claimed to have stopped the police beating up gay men by telling the police that in reality they were hitting women. When I first started going about the Glasgow gay scene in the 1970s, the tradition still lingered of referring to gay men by women's names. ("Are you going to Nellie and Alice's party?" I was asked, re a party given by Neil and Allan.) I thought we'd got beyond that in the last couple of decades, but it seems to be creeping back again via the perpetual glueing together of gay and trans as "LGBT people". What was probably once just a matter of gay groups giving a bit of shelter to a different minority has now become something a lot more problematic.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 18, 2020 21:05:30 GMT
And now she has posted an article about the toxicity within the LGBTQI Community. Nice that she has found an article to support how she feels. Shame she isn’t LGBTQI. it’s easy to bash minorities Some of us think it is very odd to glue gay people and trans people together as "LGBT" people. It makes as much sense as saying that all single parents and all sex workers are to be referred to as "SPSW people". Gay men do not think they're women. Lesbians do not identify as men. So why are they always lumped together with people who identify as belonging to the sex other than that constituted by their biology? When EastEnders first acquired a gay couple, The Sunmj printed a cartoon of Dirty Den in suspender belt and black stockings: gay men used to be seen as wanting to be women. I thought we'd got beyond that, but now it's back again, with "LGBT" implying that being gay and being trans are fundamentally the same.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 12, 2020 16:30:24 GMT
I interviewed Marvin Hamlisch (um, mumbledy mumble years ago) and I asked him about "What I Did for Love" because, to me, it just seems out of place Yes, because the whole point of the show is NOT 'what they do for love' but what they do to get in a show! The sentiment comes out of nowhere and is throughly gratuitous. It would have been no less relevant had they sung, say, "Have Yourself A Merry Little Chrisdtmas."
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Mar 18, 2020 13:16:26 GMT
The words forced to stand hit a nerve. We all realize Standing Ovations mean nothing now a days. I could go on about those in the first row stalls so over come at every show, that they must stand immediately,so the sheep follow suit. That why I prefer aisle seats, for a quick escape from this annoying habit. The people you call "sheep" may merely be people compelled to get to their feet if they want to see the bows/finale, compelled by the selfish people leaping to their feet in front of them. Perhaps the coronavirus crisis will breed a new growth of consideration for others and a realisation that YOU jumping to your feet block the view for the people behind.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Mar 12, 2020 12:09:17 GMT
Being done by the Royal Scottish Conservatoire in Glasgow next week. Their Musical Theatre productions are usually something special.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Mar 12, 2020 10:22:16 GMT
The stall in Glasgow were pretty well full on Tuesday night, the first night. This surprised me, since I wouldn't have thought this show had such pulling power. So maybe people had been moved down from one of the circles.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Feb 27, 2020 13:50:16 GMT
I was one of the people standing mid show for Ricardo Afonso at Zorro. I've never ovated mid show before (apart from a couple of weeks ago when I did the same thing for Sierra Boggess😂) but those are concerts, completely different from doing the same thing at a show. This word "ovate": it's perfectly possible to ovate without standing. You just put your hands together.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Feb 23, 2020 20:55:49 GMT
"If you're worried about looking at bums, book first row circle or a box, if available." How dreadfully selfish! An alternative solution would be for you to sit in the very back row, where you can go jumpy uppy downy as oftren as you like without impeding anyone else's view.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Feb 23, 2020 20:51:40 GMT
"it and it has nothing to do with 'me' other than the fact I am thanking the people who have just entertained me." That is to say, you don't give a damn about the people behind you. YOUR chosen way of saying 'thanks' involves contempt for the people sitting behind you. And this encourages all the other bad behaviour people complain about on here. If it's OK to deny the people behind you a view of the bows and finale, why is it not OK to wave your arms during the songs or explain things to the person next to you, both of them impeding the enjoyment of the people behind you? So much selfishness among theatregoers...
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Feb 23, 2020 20:49:12 GMT
They're rude towards the people behind you, because you force them to stand up if they want to see the finale/bows/whatever you're blocking them from seeing. I have yet to meet a performer who doesn't look or feel crestfallen when there is no standing ovation during the bows and finale. You are getting really tiresome trying to labour this point of staying seated during bows and finale. I have yet to see or meet anyone who agrees with you, either on or off the board. The REALLY tiresome people are the selfish so-and-sos who deny those behind them view of the finale and the bows. As for performers craving standing ovations, they should learn to be not so selfish, too.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Feb 23, 2020 11:33:52 GMT
That they were standing up--well, it's no different from a standing ovation. Both are inconsiderate and block the view of the people behind. Grossly selfish in both cases. Only when you do a standing ovation the show is actually over... . Actually, it's not. There are the bows, which you are blocking the people behind you from seeing, and there is often a finale/reprise, too. And there are plenty of people who leap to their feet doing a "Oh, look at me giving a standing ovation" performance after individual numbers.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Feb 23, 2020 11:31:12 GMT
"Standing ovations are rude" is not quite the take I was expecting, but OK, you do you! They're rude towards the people behind you, because you force them to stand up if they want to see the finale/bows/whatever you're blocking them from seeing.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Feb 22, 2020 16:33:31 GMT
That they were standing up--well, it's no different from a standing ovation. Both are inconsiderate and block the view of the people behind. Grossly selfish in both cases.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Feb 14, 2020 11:26:57 GMT
One thing I particularly hate is when the seating layout is designed so you view the stage through a gap in the seats and you have an annoying couple in front constantly PDAing and leaning their heads on each other's shoulders and leaning in to talk. Especially as they never just pick a configuration and sit still, they're constantly moving about, swaying back and forth and bobbing their heads around. On that note, if you're too insecure to spend a couple of hours alone and have dragged your significant other along please: a) make sure they're actually interested or up to speed in what they are seeing so they don't get bored/confused and start pawing at you and talking. b) make sure they know the rules beforehand e.g. STFU and put phones away. Agree with all that except that you don't need to be insecure to attend with a significant other.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jan 24, 2020 10:55:35 GMT
Will she fall; will she fall?!? Judging by the model design (no casters/non collapsing version without a flat base) and that it appears to start the show hanging I’d say it’s doubtful. If what is toured turns out NOT to be the original, I wonder whether a 'Trades Descriptions Act' type action would lie. I once got a refund for a production of Verdi's Aida that was promised to be a traditional production and wasn't; and for Piaf when my ticket said 'Paige is Piaf' and an understudy performed.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jan 23, 2020 11:33:07 GMT
It really was one of those moments that signified changing times. Then there’s the Christine Keeler F+++++! us all, theory. This explains modern British politics as follows. As each election came along the Conservative Party would promise to run a tight ship, cut taxes and spend a bit more on the police and defence. Labour would counter by promising to spend wisely, with a bit more for the NHS and pay for it with higher taxes on the rich. Governments changed, but post war the National Debt as a proportion of GDP routinely fell. When the Profumo affair broke the elderly MacMillan saw an election disaster looming and in desperation promised to keep taxes as they were, but spend more for the benefit of each of the electorate “You’ve never had it so good”. This left Labour at a loss and so they promised to spend even more on each of us. This spending “Arms race” has continued ever since and we have been running at a deficit for more years than not. (This is how it was explained to me and yes I recognise that the man gets off scot free). My recollection is that "You've Never Had It So Good" stems from an earlier election.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jan 23, 2020 11:29:06 GMT
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 24, 2019 10:10:41 GMT
Last night at Six at the arts theatre, there was a woman who shouted out twice and can only assume was drunk. After Courtney’s (boleyn’s) song she shouted ‘love you’ and after all the girls had sung when they have that awkward silence on stage, she shouted something else. She then got up during Six, before the megasix and started dancing and flailing her arms about, she didn’t seem to notice that absolutely no one else was getting up around her. Was a little uncomfortable...If you can stand to give a standing ovation when you want to, why can't you get up and dance, too? Both are inconsiderate.
|
|