214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jan 12, 2018 16:24:44 GMT
After seeing both WE productions, the Cinema relay of this one twice and two CD recordings, I’m full of admiration for Follies, but still don’t know quite what to make of it overall. I don’t think this has been posited before but I’ve been wondering if Follies ultimately fails because of the final sequence? I find Loveland an ANTI climax. The God-Why-Don't-You-Love-Me Blues" , "The Story of Lucy and Jessie" and even "Live, Laugh, Love” are not nearly the strongest songs in the show. They do advance the story but fail to deliver the emotional punch that Musical Theatre can. You can argue these characters are ultimately failures but I thnk that’s a dead end. Because Losing My Mind is SO strong it transforms the way we feel about a rather foolish character and unbalances the whole sequence. I’m left dazzled (wow), thinking (good) but slightly unsatisfied (bad) i.e. confused. Probably not an original feeling and maybe another production will show me the error of my thinking, but it’s what I’m left with. Maybe the way to watch the Loveland sequence is to think: now we know something about the reality that lies behind these songs that we enjoy in the theatre: people sing about living, laughing and loving when they're falling apart; Losing My Mind isn't a great romantic state of mind--it's messy and destructive; Buddy's Blues is witty and clever but it masks a hell of a situation; and so non.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jan 12, 2018 11:32:31 GMT
Frankly that's a disgusting view. I hope you never have the misfortune to be excluded from society just because you might make people uncomfortable. Anyone on this thread who thinks that disabled people should be excluded from theatre for the comfort of others, kindly do me a favour and use the 'ignore' button for my posts, because I certainly don't want to see or interact with any of you horrible individuals who feel that way. This seems like an extreme and unnecessarily abusive response to something no one ever said. Yes. Certainly, my own post about the incessant cougher was not advocating disabled people being "excluded from society just because you might make people uncomfortable". (The idea that people can be excluded from places just because someone else 'feels uncomfortable' is common enough today but nevertheless is dreadful.) I was talking about one particular disabled person who was highly inconsiderate. I do not think disabled people should be excused from the ordinary requirements to think of others. I do not know whether the woman's coughing was due to the disability that required her to use a wheelchair or whether it was an illness she was suffering from on top of her disability, but either way, a decent person would have reflected: "This relentless coughing is spoiling things for other people."
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jan 12, 2018 11:27:21 GMT
"I'd be surprised to find many disabled people who make a conscious decision to ruin other people's evenings with their disability" I didn't suggest that she made a conscious decision to ruin other people's evenings with her coughing. I did suggest that she was thoughtless or inconsiderate in not considering the effect on other people. The fact that the conductor was driven to shout at her and (telling them to track the person down and evict her) the audience nearby indicates the scale of the problem. My husband is prone to coughs and will not go to theatres or concerts if he suspects he will be coughing to an extent that will spoil things for other people. I don't think I was necessarily referring to your particular post in my response. Apologies if that wasn't clear. But when you talk about "The fact that the conductor was driven to shout at her and (telling them to track the person down and evict her) the audience nearby indicates the scale of the problem." above and in your post on the opera forum where you say "after one aria he shouted "Be quiet" and in one interval he told people in the front stalls to track down the offender and tell them to leave.", I'm afraid that doesn't "indicate the scale of the problem" at all. What it does indicate is that the conductor is a dickwad of the most gargantuan proportions for not actually speaking quietly to staff and try to find out the cause of the coughing and let them deal with it accordingly. Perhaps he'd have preferred rounding up a few villagers with burning torches instead but I guess he didn't have time as he had another aria to conduct. "I'm afraid that doesn't "indicate the scale of the problem" at all. " I think it does. This was not an occasional cough. It was a deep racking coughing that went on and on and on. That it penetrated to the conductor down among the orchestra (and people nearer to him than I said he could be heard remarking on it to the orchestra in addition to his public shoutings) indicates how very intrusive it was. And he may (I do not know) have thought it was putting the singers off.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jan 4, 2018 16:33:49 GMT
Round of applause (and a pretty boy to look at) for @ryan I also can't quite believe I've read the idea basically 'we should put the disabled audiences somewhere out of the way.' FYI a great number of theatres have a box/area available for those who struggle with being IN the auditorium due to sensory overload issues, or other things (we used to use a spare tech space in one theatre I worked in that was never used for Techies any more) but that was AT THE REQUEST of the person, not just because it would make others uncomfortable. I pay a hella lot for my train tickets too, but that doesn't give me the right to demand a wheelchair be taken off if it means I have to stand. Anyway I'm skulking off before I get proper riled up... "I also can't quite believe I've read the idea basically 'we should put the disabled audiences somewhere out of the way.' " I never said or suggested that. My point is that someone with loud, racking, near-non-stop coughing like this woman's should have had the self-awareness and decency to absent herself from the performance, either in advance or once she realised the extent of her problem that evening.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jan 4, 2018 16:31:06 GMT
Oh come now. People with disabilities live with them every single second of their lives. And no matter how much they get on with their lives without trying to let their disability run (or ruin) their lives, the very nature of a disability means that it most certainly will affect their lives. Yes, I've paid money to go to the theatre and yes, I should reasonably expect to enjoy it without being affected by other people but let's not forget, those people live their lives with their disability every. single. second. It's constant. They can't switch it on and off. I think I can count on the fingers of one leg the number of times my enjoyment of a show has been affected by someone with a disability. Now I rarely make exceptions for other people. It's my world, other people have merely been granted the right to live in it but here, I think I can make an exception. I'd be surprised to find many disabled people who make a conscious decision to ruin other people's evenings with their disability, no matter how aware of it they may be. I'm sure that you didn't mean it to sound like that but even still, I have to say that I think that's a pretty shabby thing to say. "I'd be surprised to find many disabled people who make a conscious decision to ruin other people's evenings with their disability" I didn't suggest that she made a conscious decision to ruin other people's evenings with her coughing. I did suggest that she was thoughtless or inconsiderate in not considering the effect on other people. The fact that the conductor was driven to shout at her and (telling them to track the person down and evict her) the audience nearby indicates the scale of the problem. My husband is prone to coughs and will not go to theatres or concerts if he suspects he will be coughing to an extent that will spoil things for other people.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jan 4, 2018 13:37:36 GMT
Oh, and I look forward to a new ending of the Ring in which Brunnhilde contemplates the funeral pyre and says, "Kill myself for a man? Bu**er that", and walks off hand in hand with Waltraute.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jan 4, 2018 13:35:43 GMT
Scottish Opera once changed the ending of Turandot. When the ice princess finally melted, Calaf spurned her and the curtain came down on his cradling the body of the dead Liu.
This farrago (in 1984) was exacerbated by the fact that the opera was staged as an episode in the life of Puccini: his formidable wife was Turandot, Puccini was Calaf, and Liu the servant girl his wife (falsely) accused of him having an affaire with.
Oh dear.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jan 3, 2018 21:38:39 GMT
Does near-continuous coughing constitute bad behaviour? Does it constitute bad behaviour when it's from someone in a wheelchair? A performance of La Traviata at Scottish Opera was ruined for many people by such coughing. The conductor was driven to harangue the audience and tell them to track down the cougher and make them leave. I have a thread on this under 'Opera and Ballet': theatreboard.co.uk/thread/3948/coughing-opera-management-intervene
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jan 3, 2018 21:32:56 GMT
I started this thread with the following post:
'I have just sent this message to ATG, who run the Theatre Royal in Glasgow:
"I attended the performance of La Traviata on November 28.
This was married by the persistent coughing of a woman in a wheelchair in the stall. These were huge racking coughs that went on and on throughout the performance. The conductor was infuriated: after one aria he shouted "Be quiet" and in one interval he told people in the front stalls to track down the offender and tell them to leave.
I am not saying that people should be excluded for an occasional cough. But this coughing was so loud and persistent, so racking and reverberating, that it seriously marred other people's enjoyment. There should have been management intervention to require her to leave. I hope the fact that she was in a wheelchair was not the reason for non-intervention: all credit to theatres that facilitate visits by people in wheelchairs, but disabled people have no right to ruin the enjoyment of others.
I stress: this was not an isolated throat-clearing. The coughing was a sort of ongoing obbligato." '
************************
I have now received a reply from the manager:
'My apologies for taking a while to reply to your email. I am sorry that your enjoyment of La Traviata was impaired by the coughing of another audience member. During the pause in act one I spoke to the lady concerned to see if there was anything that I could do to make her feel more comfortable and to hopefully alleviate her coughing. The lady concerned explained to me that she has a medical condition which compromises her respiratory system. She also informed me that she had her own medical supplies with her and that there was nothing that I could give her which would help to reduce the instances or volume of her coughing. Unfortunately given her medical condition if I had asked her to vacate the auditorium this would be deemed as a discriminatory act and, from unfortunate experience, I am aware that this could have left the theatre vulnerable to prosecution. I am sorry that there was not more that we could have done on the night however I hope that you appreciate the rationale for the decision that was taken.'
****************************
I have responded as follows:
'Thank you for your reply.
I can see that you were in a very difficult position, because while I doubt that, at the end of the day, disability legislation requires accommodation of disabled people whose condition entails a significant disruption of the performance for the rest of the audience, disputes are time-consuming and wearing. What a shame the woman at La Traviata did not have a stronger sense of social responsibility. It is often stressed to us that disabled people are to be treated, not in a ‘Does he take sugar?’ way, but as fully-fledged persons in their own right; but that goes with taking on the normal responsibilities to be considerate.
I am considering booking for Eugene Onegin, but I do find myself very apprehensive about the investment of £40 or £50 in case she exercises again what she seems to regard as her right to be disruptive.'
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 20, 2017 19:25:17 GMT
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 20, 2017 10:48:43 GMT
I wish all concerts would adopt this method. It was surprisingly so quick to get in. People checking I'D, booking confirmation and card in queue then a quick swipe of card at the door. Artists have no excuse not to follow suit. Did ID have to be a driving licence or a passport? That seems to be the requirement in some places. I have neither. I don't think people who don't drive and don't travel abroad should be excluded from the theatre.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 15, 2017 20:51:24 GMT
I've posted this in the Grease thread already but feel like it needs to be posted here. When I saw the tour of Grease in Bristol the audience felt the need to sing over the top of the performers. Below is a clip of the audience basically having a sing off with Danielle Hope during hopelessly devoted to you. I think this is very disrespectful to the performer and the rest of the audience, but at this particular performance, I was in the minority. I think part of the problem is that since some performances are now announced as sing-a-long performances or 'relaxed' performances, some people assume that all performances are like that.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 12, 2017 21:39:47 GMT
One thing I find disturbing about that report is that the theatre's approach seems to be one of mediation, and they talk about dealing with the issue sensitively as if using a mobile phone during a performance is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Of course people are going to use their phones during a performance if the official response is "how dare the nasty man tell you that you can't do whatever you want". I'd rather it was "get out, never come back". Yes. The statement from the manager appears to be regarding both parties as having legitimate claims--one to use a phone during the performance and to punch someone who objects, the other to watch the show he's paid to see without the interruption of a phone; and she seems to regard her task as finding a way for them both to get what they want. I imagine her trying the same approach if a man gropes a woman next to him. "Well, he wants to grope you and you don't want to be groped. Let's see if we can find a way in which you both go home happy at the end, having had a lovely theatrical experience. How about he feels you but does't penetrate? Okay? Lovely! That's what our sensitive conflict-resolution staff are trained to do."
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 2, 2017 15:16:04 GMT
But not everyone is likely to be interested in everything. Some arts events are likely to appeal only to people of a certain background. Why should *they* not get funding? And are there requirements, where funding goes, say, to a mela, that persons of all types must be attracted? I was at a (rather unexciting) exhibition of abstract art in Edinburgh. A rather apologetic official came up to us and asked would we fill out a form that they had to get visitors to complete as a condition of public funding. The form largely consisted of boxes to be ticked giving gender, race, disability (if any), etc. Most of the visitors I saw were white males. I am a white male. I rarely lie, but on this occasion I ticked the boxes that said I was a disabled black lesbian single mother. 1. "Some events are likely to appeal only to..." You're thinking about your interests and the arts as a one-way street, e.g. "I like theatre so I go to the theatre" but it's really not that simple. The stuff that we like isn't intrisically built into us. Our tastes are partly a reflection of what we're exposed to, what we feel is accessible to us, and what we believe we can be a part of. Using public funds to encourage people who might not traditionally go to the opera or the ballet or whatever to go along is part of what will (over time) encourage people to break down the old cliches about how certain artforms are only for certain people. 2. "Why should *they* not get funding?" No one has suggested that funding should *only* go towards stuff that appeals to everyone. You only need to look at where the money goes to see that that's not the case. At the end of the day though, if you have more people applying than you have money, then you need to decide between the somehow. And since it's public funds, then it makes sense that the money is given out in a way that somehow represents the public and the aims for society. I know that the guidelines vary between funding bodies (and within them, between different funding streams), but for what it's worth, in the small number I've applied to I've never seen quotas about diversity. 3. I am a white male ... I ticked the boxes that said I was a disabled black lesbian single mother. I don't know if you're being literal here. But in any case this childish act of rebellion kinda suggests that you're missing the entire point here. I guess we just have very different ways of looking at this. "You're thinking about your interests and the arts as a one-way street, e.g. "I like theatre so I go to the theatre" " No, I'm not. "Using public funds to encourage people who might not traditionally go to the opera or the ballet or whatever to go along is part of what will (over time) encourage people to break down the old cliches about how certain artforms are only for certain people." By all means, use public funds to *encourage*. Give out free opera tickets at black community centres or to people in the queue at the DWP. The trouble is that the sort of survey I referred to may well pave the way for, "No funds for you because you aren't attracting enough people of types B, C and D." "And since it's public funds, then it makes sense that the money is given out in a way that somehow represents the public and the aims for society." Giving out funds in a way that "represents the public" doesn't mean giving out funds only to events that attract people across every sector of society. And if the "aims of society" include that, then it shouldn't be in the "aims of society". "But in any case this childish act of rebellion kinda suggests that you're missing the entire point here. " It wasn't childish in the slightest. It was a principled act of doing my bit to circumvent any possibility that the organisers of the event in question would be denied future funding because they hadn't attracted enough people of types B, C, D and E. So I wasn't missing the point, let alone "the entire point".
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 2, 2017 12:17:05 GMT
No. It's racist because it depends on the thought: "Hey, there's these people of a certain race. Hey! Let's put it on and include no actors except people of THAT race. That shows just how anti-racist we are. Race--Oh, it never crosses our minds." You are just making up utter rubbish! Are you Donald Trump? Just to return to truth for a moment, Talawa's Mission is in fact: "Talawa is the UK’s primary Black led touring theatre company. Our work is informed by the wealth and diversity of the Black British experience, and through that we create outstanding work by cultivating the best in emerging and established Black artists. We invest in talent, develop audiences and inspire dialogue with and within communities across the UK and internationally. By doing so, we enrich the cultural life of all." That may well be their mission. It doesn't mean it's not racist.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 2, 2017 12:15:33 GMT
No. It's racist because it depends on the thought: "Hey, there's these people of a certain race. Hey! Let's put it on and include no actors except people of THAT race. That shows just how anti-racist we are. Race--Oh, it never crosses our minds." Have you ever considered the issue from any perspective OTHER than as a member of the dominant majority? Yes, I have.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 1, 2017 20:44:06 GMT
What I do disagree with is forcing theatres to have BAME representation in the front of house and backstage. If they don’t meet a certain quota they can be fined or lose funding. However, I'm not sure why it's surprising or disagreeable when it comes to public funding that those funds should go to events and places that work towards the type of society we want to become. But not everyone is likely to be interested in everything. Some arts events are likely to appeal only to people of a certain background. Why should *they* not get funding? And are there requirements, where funding goes, say, to a mela, that persons of all types must be attracted? I was at a (rather unexciting) exhibition of abstract art in Edinburgh. A rather apologetic official came up to us and asked would we fill out a form that they had to get visitors to complete as a condition of public funding. The form largely consisted of boxes to be ticked giving gender, race, disability (if any), etc. Most of the visitors I saw were white males. I am a white male. I rarely lie, but on this occasion I ticked the boxes that said I was a disabled black lesbian single mother.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 1, 2017 20:37:49 GMT
Doing it *all* black is racist. Good grief. Did I fall asleep and wake up in 1937? No. It's racist because it depends on the thought: "Hey, there's these people of a certain race. Hey! Let's put it on and include no actors except people of THAT race. That shows just how anti-racist we are. Race--Oh, it never crosses our minds."
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 1, 2017 17:17:51 GMT
I don't think you should accuse him of racism because he objects to an all-black cast. I stand by it. To go as far as calling an all black cast "a disgrace", coupled with a Richard Littlejohnesque "It's PC gone mad" and an instance that "it has to be said" indicates to me a person with unsavoury views on race. He may think it's a disgrace as being racist--as involving a deliberate attempt to people the stage with actors of one race only. I agree that his use of "PC" is mildly ominous--people who use the phrase quite often have nasty attitudes--but not enough to be as conclusive as you suggest. "It has to be said" could spring from the view that casting it all black is itself racist.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 1, 2017 17:11:10 GMT
Nobody here seems aware that when the National Theatre did Guys and Dolls in 1997, Sky Masterson was played by Clark Peters, who's black ... Oh yes I was. I didn't deny you were there. I said no-one had shown awareness that Masterson was played by a black actor. And that was true.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 1, 2017 17:08:59 GMT
It only has to be said by racists. I don't think you should accuse him of racism because he objects to an all-black cast. Indeed, I think there's something racist about the idea of staging it as something taking place among all those black folks. But that's not the same as colour-blind casting, which ignores race differences and doesn't try to emphasise race. Further to the matter of colour-blind casting, doesn't anyone remember that Sky Masterson was played by Clark Peters, who's black, in the NT's 1997 revival? Doing it *all* black is racist.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 1, 2017 17:07:55 GMT
Nobody here seems aware that when the National Theatre did Guys and Dolls in 1997, Sky Masterson was played by Clark Peters, who's black ... Really? NOBODY here seems aware of it? Some of us actually saw it. More than once. I said nobody *seems* aware of it. And that was because no-one has mentioned it in the context of this discussion. "Nobody here seems aware of it" does not mean "No-one reading this board saw it."
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 1, 2017 11:06:02 GMT
An all black cast?? I think this is a disgrace and PC blind colour casting gone too far. What about an all white cast of The Lion King? Madness... I'm sorry but it has to be said. It only has to be said by racists. I don't think you should accuse him of racism because he objects to an all-black cast. Indeed, I think there's something racist about the idea of staging it as something taking place among all those black folks. But that's not the same as colour-blind casting, which ignores race differences and doesn't try to emphasise race. Further to the matter of colour-blind casting, doesn't anyone remember that Sky Masterson was played by Clark Peters, who's black, in the NT's 1997 revival?
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 1, 2017 10:33:39 GMT
bellboard 27 said: "I'm very stingy with my standing ovations." Good, but why not eliminate them completely, since they are selfish, forcing the people behind to stand if they want to see the finale? I think they've become a fad mainly because they've been encouraged on those TV talent contests, where the producers want a dramatic moment of a whole audience rising to its feet.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Dec 1, 2017 10:30:35 GMT
Nobody here seems aware that when the National Theatre did Guys and Dolls in 1997, Sky Masterson was played by Clark Peters, who's black ...
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Nov 30, 2017 21:23:09 GMT
I started this thread and think I'd like to add to what I said.
The coughing was so frequent and intrusive that in the intervals strangers were remarking to each other about it.
The woman next to me said something appalling. It was something like this: "Well, you see, that's the trouble with minorities; they cause problems for the majority."
I did manage to reply, with some crispness, "In the great majority of cases minorities do not impinge on the majority at all." But I should have pointed out that the lack of consideration of this cougher in a wheelchair was no reason to slag off wheelchair users in general or the practice of providing facilities for them.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Nov 30, 2017 10:03:39 GMT
I have just sent this message to ATG, who run the Theatre Royal in Glasgow:
"I attended the performance of La Traviata on November 28.
This was married by the persistent coughing of a woman in a wheelchair in the stall. These were huge racking coughs that went on and on throughout the performance. The conductor was infuriated: after one aria he shouted "Be quiet" and in one interval he told people in the front stalls to track down the offender and tell them to leave.
I am not saying that people should be excluded for an occasional cough. But this coughing was so loud and persistent, so racking and reverberating, that it seriously marred other people's enjoyment. There should have been management intervention to require her to leave. I hope the fact that she was in a wheelchair was not the reason for non-intervention: all credit to theatres that facilitate visits by people in wheelchairs, but disabled people have no right to ruin the enjoyment of others. "
I stress: this was not an isolated throat-clearing. The coughing was a sort of ongoing obbligato.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Nov 23, 2017 9:16:57 GMT
"the cast get a standing ovation" Oh dear, how selfish; forcing those behind to stand if they want to see the finale. I think uk audiences are Ok at this - they tend not to stand when there's lots of kids in the audience. It's still selfish, even if there aren't children in the audience.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Nov 22, 2017 10:51:17 GMT
"the cast get a standing ovation"
Oh dear, how selfish; forcing those behind to stand if they want to see the finale.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Nov 19, 2017 20:50:07 GMT
Also considered standing up, but didn't know if that was acceptable or not... lol... Oh? The selfish practice of standing ovations, blocking the people behind from seeing the finale, hasn't caught on there? Hallelujah for Hungary!
|
|