Rita, Sue, and Bob Too (Out of Joint)

Some slight overreactions here methinks. Resolving to never again go to a theatre you've never even been to once? Writing off the entire country as pathetic because of the decision of one comparatively small theatre? Never let it be said theatre fans don't have a flair for the dramatic!

The Royal Court also have just announced this, coincidentally on the day I had originally booked for. Might not smooth over all your bleeding wounds, but I think it sounds interesting anyway: royalcourttheatre.com/whats-on/the-andrea-project/

I completely agree.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I do think that there's a problem with the arts trying to actively remove certain topics that represent unpleasant aspects of human behaviour. However, IMO that's not really what's going on here; it's a change of programming reflective of the fact that theatre as an artform is still reeling from these specific issues.

Naturally, we don't know the full story, but based on the information that has been publicised, it sounds like they are understandably weighing up whether putting this show on *in the current climate* is the right thing to do, especially given the aims of the theatre. This is hardly equivalent to 'silencing' the playwright and IMO making big leaps like this isn't particularly helpful.

The reality surely is that, as with everything in life, there's a greyscale to all of this and each of us would draw the line somewhere. You might feel that this was wrong but perhaps a slightly different set of circumstances might be different for you; if, say, they had planned to put on a production connected strongly to Harvey Weinstein(?) or whatever. To illustrate this; to my memory there have been a few recent threads on this forum about violent plays being put on around the time of recent terrorist attacks in the UK, and whether those were appropriate to be performed.

But they are precisely the sort of mollycoddled people who should see it. I watch a sitcom like Motherland, where getting the hairdo for a book launch ruined by a children's pool party is compared to a war zone, and it really brings home the huge gulf between the life experiences of those whose voices dominate the media and politics and those who really need help and understanding but have instead been abandoned and ignored for generations. Instead, they're turning the play into a battleground for the theatre's own internal mistakes in not tackling abuses they should have tackled within their ranks years ago but are now doing posthumously.

I own the play but haven't read it yet.
I have to say I'm very surprised that it has been cancelled, only because I had always assumed it was a play about grooming rather than one that glamourises it. Is that not the case then?

Seems bizarre to have tarred this play with the general zeitgeist brush, when it could have triggered important discussions.

Although, there may be more at play here with regards to, as others have suggested, the actual original putting together of the play / how Dunbar was treated herself, but that's all pure speculation.

I respect and applaud the way the RC has dealt with the ongoing issues and how they have put themselves forward as an important, historical cultural institution that is willing to take a stand and try to affect real change, but this specific cancellation does seem odd to me.

Missed opportunity I think.

Who's crying?  It's all well and good to produce 8 new voices and call this the Andrea project, but it is NOT Andrea's voice.  To excise this play is to whitewash part of the Royal Court's history.  M S-C was a very hands-on director (excuse the pun).  He worked very closely with all the writers he encouraged and played a huge role in the development and direction of those plays.  Are they now going to ban all the plays he was involved with including Top Girls and Our Country's Good? Are those plays tainted too and if not why not? Because they are not about underage sex?  Plays at the Royal Court should make us feel uneasy and leave us asking questions.  At the moment the plays at the RC have me asking all the wrong questions e.g.  what the hell was that all about?  Historically, the Royal Court has worked hard to avoid censorship, so  I think they are on very dodgy ground here.  Dunbar wrote the plays she wanted to and they should be honoured.  They should be produced at the Royal Court which is the theatre that discovered her when she was a schoolgirl.  By all accounts becoming an award winning writer was one of the  most important and significant things that happened to her.  How many working class writers are produced at the RC?  Not many. You can probably count them on one hand without running out of fingers.

Are they not putting on the play because of its subject matter or because of accusations against someone associated with the company putting it on? Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Ben Jonson got away with murder literally so we shouldn’t expect any of his work to be staged from now on. And all plays written before last week are probably dodgy. My reasoning is as muddled as theirs isn’t it. Geddit?

As Lynette suggests, the rationale for this cancellation seems very 'conflictual' itself. If it were just about Stafford-Clark's association with this production, then in the context of the allegations around him I might understand. But the RC's statement makes clear that it's now uncomfortable with the play itself, because of its themes of "grooming and abuses of power of young women", and this seems absurdly to conflate the thematic concerns of Andrea Dunbar's work with the alleged behaviour of someone on the creative team. The alarming suggestion is that Dunbar is complicit, that merely writing a play about these topics makes her an accessory.

The full statement then ties itself in further knots by saying 'The show has successfully toured to ten venues this Autumn and we remain incredibly proud that the shared collaboration made the tour possible.' So which is it - how can you be proud of something that you find too tainted to stage in your own theatre?

Completely 100% agree with this, and it's why the decision doesn't sit right.

I had to google it to make sure it was a real word. I'm not sure why "conflicting" wouldn't have sufficed but there we go.

I chalked that up to clumsy phrasing. "Work" doesn't automatically mean "just the text and nothing but the text", in the case of theatre it's going to include acting and directing and design, and although the content of this tweet comes over as a bit of an after-thought, it does clarify that it's nothing against the play or playwright and all about the wider context.

It probably is clumsy phrasing, which in itself is very disappointing considering the importance of the subject and how the RC have put themselves forward as an organisation willing to tackle the issue (which is to be applauded).

I'm glad they are putting on the Dunbar event, but those 2 tweets do seem to contradict each other.

As I haven't seen the production, I can't comment.
Perhaps it is ill-judged? Perhaps it does send out the wrong message? Perhaps, in the absence of the writer, it does the text an injustice by missing the point completely?

That would be a very different scenario, but none of that is implied in what has been said.