1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Sept 21, 2017 12:29:57 GMT
Or, what I did yesterday (it's at the Bolton Octagon then touring, and arrives at the Royal Court next year)
It's terrific - sharply funny, with strong direction and performances, especially from Taj Atwal and Gemma Dobson as Rita and Sue. I'd forgotten that the play ends differently from the film; the film's ending is more upbeat, but it's a rather contrived piece of wish-fulfillment, and the play's ending is more truthful.
Interesting to watch it in the context of the various grooming/child sex abuse scandals that have been in the news over the last few years; it's difficult to apply the word 'innocence' to a play about two teenagers sleeping with a married man, but there's a startling directness to it, and the play does now feel like a period piece. Andrea Dunbar had a very sharp ear for dialogue, and there's a refreshing lack of condescension to the play, but I suspect we (inevitably) end up viewing Bob and Sue's Mum rather more harshly than Dunbar did. It's an important play, though, and there's a lot more to it than swearing and shagging. If it's heading your way, it's worth seeing.
|
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Sept 21, 2017 12:35:56 GMT
A word of warning though; there's no interval, if that's important to your theatregoing experience.
|
|
2,058 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Sept 21, 2017 13:13:52 GMT
Going to wait until next year before deciding whether to book or not, but what is the running time?
|
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Sept 21, 2017 13:18:31 GMT
'Just' 90 minutes, give or take. To be honest, that's what's putting me off. Call me old fashioned, but I still like a trip to the theatre to feel like an event.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Sept 21, 2017 13:37:57 GMT
Going to wait until next year before deciding whether to book or not, but what is the running time? It says 90 minutes in the programme. It was significantly less than that - maybe 80 - yesterday afternoon. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2017 14:07:38 GMT
A play should either be shorter than 90 minutes, or longer than 7 hours. Anything in between is pointless.
|
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Dec 13, 2017 11:14:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 11:19:20 GMT
A slightly simplistic summary! It's also due to the themes of the play being highly conflictual to the work the Royal Court has done this year to address sexual harassment in theatre. Massive respect to Vicky Featherstone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 11:20:20 GMT
" A JOINT STATEMENT FROM THE ROYAL COURT THEATRE AND OUT OF JOINT The Royal Court Theatre and Out of Joint have chosen not to present the current touring production of Rita Sue and Bob Too at the Royal Court in January 2018. It was due to run for 2 and a half weeks. The departure of Max Stafford-Clark from Out of Joint and the recent allegations in the media have coincided with the Royal Court’s response to the spotlight on our industry and the rigorous interrogation of our own practices. On our stage we recently heard 150 stories of sexual harassment and abuse and therefore the staging of this work, with its themes of grooming and abuses of power on young women, on that same stage now feels highly conflictual. The show has successfully toured to ten venues this Autumn and we remain incredibly proud that the shared collaboration made the tour possible. Out of Joint is now a company in transition, facing its future, a future which the Royal Court whole-heartedly supports and looks forward to being part of through the current development of a new co-commission. " I can’t quite believe the reason the RC are giving for this They are showing a play there at the moment about 2 men who groom drug and kill lone women I am also amazed that this beacon of free speech has started sh*tting it’s pants so much Is this due to oversensitive Middle Aged female AD? The irony is that the play was written by a woman and is a historical piece in more ways than one There is also a play mocking the Syrian regime playing there although most Syrians aren’t in a position to be offended by the Work This reason of “conflict” is a worrying sign of self censorship and hiding away from media and arts forms which raise the issues seems bizarre and stupid |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 11:22:55 GMT
A slightly simplistic summary! It's also due to the themes of the play being highly conflictual to the work the Royal Court has done this year to address sexual harassment in theatre. Massive respect to Vicky Featherstone. Hardly respect Why programme it in the first place If they have such an amazing moral stance Only AFTER the allegations did they deem this play a conflict Before them did they think the content of this play to be acceptable? And normal? A man grooming 2 schoolgirls They needed the events of this year to realise that? I am more accepting of the reason relating to Max Stafford Clarke although he didn’t write this play But the “conflict” I don’t accept There is a challenging play upstairs “Bad Roads” which explores sexual abuse of women in war Why shouldn’t they pull that too? The play is still programmed to run at 3 venues next year and if it does go ahead and play those after already visiting 10 other venues It just makes the RC looks weird and inconsistent |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 12:38:17 GMT
It just makes the RC looks weird and inconsistent The statement is made jointly by the Royal Court and Out of Joint. The Royal Court has taken a national role in the theatre industry's response to the crisis in sexual harassment. Why not take it on face value that there'd be a dreadful conflict in presenting this production on the same stage (Jerwoood Theatre Downstairs) as the recent testimonies of 150 women? Bad Roads is in the Upstairs theatre. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 12:57:02 GMT
It just makes the RC looks weird and inconsistent The statement is made jointly by the Royal Court and Out of Joint. The Royal Court has taken a national role in the theatre industry's response to the crisis in sexual harassment. Why not take it on face value that there'd be a dreadful conflict in presenting this production on the same stage (Jerwoood Theatre Downstairs) as the recent testimonies of 150 women? Bad Roads is in the Upstairs theatre. Stafford-Clark is inextricably linked with the play, it's as if the BBC decided that they were going to put on reruns of Jim'll Fix it, as we now know what we previously didn't. Dunbar is, sadly, no longer with us to give her part of the story but, again, knowing what we now know, what she wrote as a brilliant screw you to those who looked down on the promiscuity of her working class upbringing, takes on a darker hue as directed by a sex pest.
Despite the reactionary sexism above, with age and gender used as a means of ignoring much of the population (a part who have been historically ignored), I doubt that any man, young or old, could see this (or Spacey, or whoever) without a sense of guilt.
We still have the excellent Alan Clarke film and it's available on a great new BFI release.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 13:03:55 GMT
We still have the excellent Alan Clarke film and it's available on a great new BFI release. We also still have this Royal Court co-production. The tour continues, as scheduled, to Huddersfield, Mold and Glasgow. The conflict is with the particular London stage where it would have played. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 13:39:47 GMT
From the Archives: This was my Forum comment at the time on last year's Royal Court at Sixty Bash. All the extracts made their mark, especially where the play was already familiar to me. I thought the strongest scene came from Top Girls. It was weirdly affecting and slightly stomach-churning to see Paul Copley, Lesley Manville and Joanne Whalley in a car recreating their original roles of 34 years ago from Rita, Sue and Bob Too. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 15:17:17 GMT
I have mixed feelings about this turn of events. MS-C worked closely with Dunbar to develop her scripts so it is not unlikely that, given his proclivities, it was he who encouraged her to focus so much on the characters’ sex lives. On the other hand, Dunbar was a very rare writer - a woman from the sink estates. Not many writers are produced by such an environment. Given this her work should be honoured. Her work was autobiographical and she told the truth of her experience whether we like it or not. I saw The Arbor and RS&BT in a revival many years ago. It is a shame that others won’t get to see this. It is not ok to silence Dunbar’s voice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 15:29:18 GMT
I have mixed feelings about this turn of events. MS-C worked closely with Dunbar to develop her scripts so it is not unlikely that, given his proclivities, it was he who encouraged her to focus so much on the characters’ sex lives. On the other hand, Dunbar was a very rare writer - a woman from the sink estates. Not many writers are produced by such an environment. Given this her work should be honoured. Her work was autobiographical and she told the truth of her experience whether we like it or not. I saw The Arbor and RS&BT in a revival many years ago. It is a shame that others won’t get to see this. It is not ok to silence Dunbar’s voice. We live in a pathetic world without convictions And incapacitated to do anything I never thought the RC would become part of that Their decision to pull the 2.5 week run is feeble And it will alter my view of them hereafter It’s a shame as I had nothing but utmost respect for this venue up until now Given their recent shows needing to paper almost weekly it’s a far cry from the Cooke days |
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Dec 13, 2017 15:35:19 GMT
Fuming over this. Absolutely pathetic hand-wringing move. It was going to be my first time at the Royal Court, and after this "thought police" move, I doubt I will ever darken their door.
|
|
5,840 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Dec 13, 2017 15:38:40 GMT
I don't really understand why allowing the schedule performances to take place in the same physical space where the recent testimonials were given is really that problematic.
I fully support the work that the RC have done in coming up with a new framework for the definition and handling of the issues surrounding harassment and bullying in the workplace (indeed I am using it as the basis for the company I work with) - but I think this is a slight mis-step.
If it is acceptable for this production to be seen in other theatres, then it should be fit for the stage of the Royal Court. They knew the content of the material when they programmed it - that side of things cannot have come as a surprise. If the revival had been staged by Stafford-Clark, I could understand the decision more - but it wasn't. The production has a completely new - female - director.
I think it could have been a great opportunity to continue conversations about harassment, grooming and consent - reinforcing the work the RC has done in recent weeks. An opportunity that has now been missed.
I very much hope that the actors and crew are not left out of pocket by this decision.
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 13, 2017 15:40:43 GMT
I have mixed feelings about this turn of events. MS-C worked closely with Dunbar to develop her scripts so it is not unlikely that, given his proclivities, it was he who encouraged her to focus so much on the characters’ sex lives. On the other hand, Dunbar was a very rare writer - a woman from the sink estates. Not many writers are produced by such an environment. Given this her work should be honoured. Her work was autobiographical and she told the truth of her experience whether we like it or not. I saw The Arbor and RS&BT in a revival many years ago. It is a shame that others won’t get to see this. It is not ok to silence Dunbar’s voice.
I can understand why they felt they had to do it like this. Its not ideal but the story was the exact sort of thing which came out wth their METOO open house. I can understand that they felt like they had to be sensitive to that.
If people are annoyed, well that's the price of making things better overall for that issue.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Dec 13, 2017 15:49:25 GMT
it is clear that the Royal Court downstairs is now holy ground!
Pull a production and make a case. But to pull it from this venue alone is either hypocritical or cowardice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 15:56:35 GMT
Likely that Out of Joint would like to have pulled the tour but financially it would affect them badly. I was thinking of going in Huddersfield but I don't have the heart to see it now.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 13, 2017 15:57:28 GMT
well that's the price of making things better An upper-middle class theatre in one of the richest parts of the world silences a working class Northern woman writer's voice because they're uncomfortable and embarrassed about their own history with a man - now very old - doing what he did there, apparently unchallenged, in his heyday. Dunbar's work is honest and she was a victim of the lifestyle it portrays. Portrays, not celebrates (the film has a happier ending, btw). I saw it before the revelations came out but I can't imagine these revelations were 'news' to those within the industry. Before we took our seats, we'd been discussing the issues in it because one of the women I was seeing it with works in social services and liaises with police over grooming and child exploitation in the same areas Dunbar knew. It was a strong production and we all enjoyed it. How would I have felt seeing it now? I don't know, but I think cancelling is the wrong decision, especially given the wording of the theatre's statement which comes across as an attack on the play itself. |
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 13, 2017 16:47:26 GMT
well that's the price of making things better An upper-middle class theatre in one of the richest parts of the world silences a working class Northern woman writer's voice because they're uncomfortable and embarrassed about their own history with a man - now very old - doing what he did there, apparently unchallenged, in his heyday. Dunbar's work is honest and she was a victim of the lifestyle it portrays. Portrays, not celebrates (the film has a happier ending, btw). I saw it before the revelations came out but I can't imagine these revelations were 'news' to those within the industry. Before we took our seats, we'd been discussing the issues in it because one of the women I was seeing it with works in social services and liaises with police over grooming and child exploitation in the same areas Dunbar knew. It was a strong production and we all enjoyed it. How would I have felt seeing it now? I don't know, but I think cancelling is the wrong decision, especially given the wording of the theatre's statement which comes across as an attack on the play itself.
Is it a class or gender thing?
I would have liked to have seen it. I think they shouldn't have cancelled it, but I understand why they did what they did and I am reluctant to have a massive go, esp as there may be other issues behind the scenes informing it
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 16:52:02 GMT
Likely that Out of Joint would like to have pulled the tour but financially it would affect them badly. I was thinking of going in Huddersfield but I don't have the heart to see it now.
Why is it likely that Out of Joint would like that? M S-C left OoJ weeks before the start of the tour, which is presumably why the new AD stepped in to direct it. So the direction must have been done in the context of the M S-C business. Most of the tour has been to places that share the culture of the play. The audience of the Royal Court leg would have been an anomaly. I'd booked to see it there as a convenient venue but I'd have preferred to see it with a more natural audience, at most of the other tour venues. I think the audience should empathise with the girls. Think of Parsley's comments about Road! This play would always have been an uncomfortable watch, surrounded by a Sloane Square audience. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 16:53:25 GMT
I am glad lots of you agree with my opinions
I know take the piss a lot of the time
But I never mean anyone any harm
I am glad to have this forum to be able to share our views
In the era of Dominic Cooke I was able to actually able to have this sort of dialogue with the AD and he really engaged with differences of opinion
I just see Vicky Featherstone as a Mumsy bore
With a pseudo political namby agenda
I am so upset I could cry
The UK is pathetic sometimes
I appreciate all the views and empathise with others who are annoyed
It reminds me of when Behzti was pulled
From the Birmingham Rep some years back
I was so angry then I cried for days
I recall the emails I had from DC when I didn’t like the Wallace Shawn season
They had some humour about them and humanity
|
|
