4,033 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Oct 30, 2017 21:36:24 GMT
Rapp himself says that things were different for young actors in the 80s. He would make his own way to the theatre across Manhattan which would never happen nowadays, and he was mixing with adults socially from a young age. Blimey, I thought New York was supposed to be pretty dangerous back in the 80s. (I mean in terms of general crime, muggings & suchlike, rather than in terms of being (allegedly) assulted by Kevin Spacey!) |
|
916 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Oct 30, 2017 22:07:39 GMT
Rapp was working on Broadway from a young age, playing Anna's son in the Yul Brynner revival of the King and I. His mother seems to have been a bit naive about life in the big city. People are much more informed these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 22:26:36 GMT
The rules regarding children in theatre have significantly tightened over the past decades. We now have very specific rules about dressing rooms, toilets and so forth that were never considered necessary when I first started appearing on stage in the early 80s. If you have children in the same cast as adults, you have to provide toilets for the children to which the adults have no access. In many theatres, there are only single cubicle facilities anyway - so I can't see the issue with a child using a toilet that was used by an adult half an hour before - as there is no opportunity for them to be using the same toilet at the same time! In many older theatres, this can be significant strain on room allocations etc as they were not built with that sort of rule in mind. Also most of the regulations only apply during performances - the rehearsal period is far less regulated. I have no idea on how the US system differs and how it has developed over the years. But my feeling is that the UK system has been in response to perceived rather than real problems and so has created a system that isn't really fit for purpose and has created unnecessary burdens that don't add to the protection of minors. j When I was doing my ‘A’ levels I worked part time in a young people’s talent agency. The kids always had chaperones from rehearsal to performance. Many of the chaperones were parents but as far as I can recall there were also professional chaperones. This was in the late 70s. |
|
5,845 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Oct 30, 2017 22:37:22 GMT
The rules relating to paid performance are different to those for amateurs (which is where the majority of adult/child interaction takes place round the country when looking at theatre)
|
|
736 posts
|
Post by dippy on Oct 30, 2017 23:15:54 GMT
Sort of tried to keep up with this thread but didn't manage and have now skim read about half of it. This would probably fit into the thread on a previous page but I'm posting it anyway. I work in the film industry and it's interesting reading people's thoughts on the working in the arts. There are measures taken on some of the larger productions I've worked on against harassment. For example if you work on a Disney production (not sure if it's all Disney or just feature films?) you have to go to an "Anti harassment & bullying in the work place" seminar when we start working on the film unless you have been to one in the last two years. Of course it covers all kinds of harassment but it's definitely something that they take serious. Unfortunately I can't really remember much of it, been about five years since I worked full time on a Disney film, but we were definitely given contact numbers for use in the event of harassment. I also feel like I remember that several men weren't all that interested in being there and afterwards joked about "what are we going to talk about at work now, we won't be able to speak anymore in case we offend someone". The seminar did lead to someone having to apologise about some bullying (not sexual) in front of the whole crew and I don't think that would have happened had it not been for the seminar.
Also on call sheets for some things I've worked on we have a 24 hour health & safety hotline phone number that's for reporting harassment and I guess safety issues. I had a funny situation at work a couple of months ago where someone thought he was putting his hand on the edge of an open door only to grab my breast because I was standing leaning against it. Poor man, he was so embarrassed and he immediately mentioned the phone number on the call sheet should I need it. Of course I know it was a mistake, it was much more embarrassing for him than it was for me.
Women in Film and TV UK is also currently asking for anyone who has been sexually bullied or harassed to contact them which I guess can be seen as a good thing.
I know very little about what working outside of the arts is like, for example in an office, but do you have to do harassment seminars? I can't imagine that would happen in small companies, but how about if you work in a large company, is that a policy that they have to do something like that?
|
|
19,803 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 31, 2017 0:14:33 GMT
I know very little about what working outside of the arts is like, for example in an office, but do you have to do harassment seminars? I can't imagine that would happen in small companies, but how about if you work in a large company, is that a policy that they have to do something like that?I work for a very big company (over 80,000 employees) and no, I’m not aware of such a seminar or training course. We have regular employee attitude surveys and believe me, they’re into everything else. However what’s interesting is that some of the anecdotes recounted here by people about things that have happened at their places of work I find completely hair-raising and unimaginable. At my place of work the number of female managers is high (I’ve worked for way more women than men) and in the many years of working for the company I have never heard even a smidgeon of a rumour about sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. Yes, people get off with eachother and form relationships but harassment? Abuse? Never heard anything. My own team is 75% female, all of them managers themselves, and we have the sort of relationship where I’m sure they would tell me if someone had acted inappropriately towards them. It’s never been mentioned. So am I not hearing about it for some reason? Or is it not happening? Have large corporates eradicated it? Or is it all going on underground? |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Oct 31, 2017 2:00:02 GMT
Your friend's story might warrant similar investigation: why would he be fired because he walked in the MD and an ensemble member - wouldn't he be more likely to tell others (as he did you) if he was fired? Why did the MD wield such influence that he could both fire and promote people - from my experience that would usually be the director and producers? Why would he be told he was being fired for 'artistic differences' but then claim that the woman understudy wanted him fired? (Again, from my experience, understudies really don't wield that sort of power.) Did he tell his agent and Equity what happened? Did he pick up the phone and make that call as you suggested Rapp should have done to clear the air? I am not sure, but I think your point was that this ambitious female ensemble member had sex with the MD to further her career and then got your friend fired because...her ambitions were observed? Is that it? Finally - you use the words 'erased' and 'intimidated' a lot - and not always in a way that I understand. Thanks for asking! Yes, it has been a very ugly and strange situation. It was during the first cast change of a new production. There was basically the MD, the director and the assistant director who had all the power. The producers only came in every now and then. The director (a famous director) did the first 3 weeks of rehearsal and then went on holidays, the last week of rehearsals before the first performance of the new cast was planned a week later, and was lead by the MD and the assistant director. The incident happened 2 days before the director went on holidays and as soon as he was gone, the MD arranged a meeting with my friend and said he had already let the producers know that they were going to let him go. The ass. director was not at the meeting either, he supposedly had other obligations. My friend said "why are you doing this", like I explained, and the MD mentioned "artistic differences" which he also mentioned to the producers at the office. When my friend said "we both know this is bullsh*t and what it's really about", and the MD basically said "it's your word against mine", and that the girl in question encouraged him to do it. I don't really know why he said that, but maybe to try to shift the blame to someone else/away from himself/looking less like a bastard. I also believe the MD had a wife and the girl actually had a BF. They probably felt they just could not have someone around who knew about it. The girl in question wasn't exactly right for the part either, so it could very well be that the MD has had discussions with director/producers about the girl being suitable for understudy for the lead, convincing them that she needed to get the part. And that his pleads would look silly if they found out. The auditions for this show were organized by the country's most notable casting agency, and it's really important to keep a good reputation with them. After the meeting, my friend called the casting agency if they knew anything and the production office had let them know "artistic differences", and that "these things happen in showbizz". Then he called the producers office and they said the same thing "We weren't there, but if the MD doesn't want to work with you due to artistic differences, we have to accept that". So he couldn't go anywhere. Now, here's the thing. He did not tell anyone about it. Except me and his family and a few other friends. He was intimidated by the situation. If he would have told this to the casting agency, they would think he was crazy. Or trying to bad mouth the production that they are so proud of. He wanted to keep his reputation clean. He was scared. I encouraged him to tell them, but he says it would ruin his career as that was the kind of atmosphere and environment at the time (now about 5 years ago). It is a very small world. You really don't stand strong as a fired young ensemble actor with a story and no proof. There really is an environment where people turn against you if you look somewhat like an outsider. Another detail: The MD and the ass.director were good friends, and the guy replacing my friend was the best friend of the ass. director. Which was odd to say the least as well. It started to look like some sort of pact. It was a hugely popular show that everyone wanted to be a part of. Also, the real director on holidays must have had no idea where my friend went. Anyway, my point is that people sometimes try to erase inconvenient things and people from the world when feeling intimidated by something, but that is not always the right way. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 31, 2017 7:35:26 GMT
"2001" is a great film despite its author being a paedophile
It seems reckless to claim this, given Clarke was cleared by the police, and that the Sunday Mirror who raised the allegations later apologised, and were criticised by Interpol for failing to provide the recorded evidence they alleged they had. Well you have a point but the evidence against Clarke (and it's not just the single source you mention) is persuasive - his own stated views on age of consent and for moving to Sri Lanka in the first place are circumstantial evidence at least. If you are looking for absolute proof in a court of law then obviously it is not available and never will be now, and it won't be either for the allegations against Spacey though everyone seems to be accepting them as true ("House of Cards" cancelled I see). It is wrong to call this a witch hunt - because of course there weren't any witches - but as you rightly imply not every allegation currently will be true so we should show caution. I think this is different when the subject is dead though and speculation is more acceptable (or maybe simply safer) - the current interest in Ted Heath for example. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 31, 2017 7:50:23 GMT
I don't know what Kevin Spacey thought he was going to achieve with this statement, did he think the LGBTQ+ community would feel so honoured that he'd admitted to being one of their own that they'd shield him from all of the backlash of him sexually assaulting a child? I don't think the statement was aimed at the LGBTQ+ community. I think it was a carefully-planned strategy to distract the media, and to deflect the feeding frenzy away from Anthony Rapp's allegations towards something that would be more easily manageable. And I do think it was carefully planned. I don't think that tweet, or the strategy behind it, was concocted this morning. Rapp told the story, leaving out Spacey's name, in 2001. I don't find it believable that Spacey and his publicist were unaware that the story was out there, and that at some point Spacey's name might become attached to it. I think there was a plan of action in place for if/when the story broke, and that's what we saw this morning. To an extent, it seems to have worked: Spacey is getting ripped to shreds on Twitter, which is less easy to manipulate, but a fair number of headlines, though by no means all of them, have focused on the coming-out part of the story, and buried Rapp and his allegations in the body of the text. Need not even be prepared specifically for Rapp - there are plenty of other stories circulating about Spacey. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 9:24:48 GMT
Honestly, once this all began, it wasn't so much a case of "will someone name Kevin Spacey?" as it was "who will name Kevin Spacey?". I'm not claiming to be an expert, but surely everyone involved with theatre, even as tangentially as being just audience members, has heard whispers. Even if you hadn't heard whispers, Lucy Prebble's article on the subject may not have named names but it would have been surprising if you hadn't considered one of the people she obliquely mentions might have been Spacey.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 9:41:25 GMT
Speaking of article writing I suppose it's a relief I can relieve myself of Libby Purves' reviews from now on given her opinions on Rapp's motivations etc.
Also a nice measure of a few other well known theatre bloggers who think we should lay off good old Kev...
If I read one more tweet talking about 'dignified' statements I will not be responsible for my actions.
|
|
2,504 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Oct 31, 2017 9:51:24 GMT
Speaking of article writing I suppose it's a relief I can relieve myself of Libby Purves' reviews from now on given her opinions on Rapp's motivations etc. Also a nice measure of a few other well known theatre bloggers who think we should lay off good old Kev... If I read one more tweet talking about 'dignified' statements I will not be responsible for my actions. Yup, the 'quiet dignity' of Spacey admitting he might have got drunk and tried to have sex with a 14 year old boy.
Its unwise to jump to his defence so readily, I doubt very much that their isn't more stuff to come out |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 10:01:12 GMT
Speaking of article writing I suppose it's a relief I can relieve myself of Libby Purves' reviews from now on given her opinions on Rapp's motivations etc. Also a nice measure of a few other well known theatre bloggers who think we should lay off good old Kev... If I read one more tweet talking about 'dignified' statements I will not be responsible for my actions. Yup, the 'quiet dignity' of Spacey admitting he might have got drunk and tried to have sex with a 14 year old boy.
Its unwise to jump to his defence so readily, I doubt very much that their isn't more stuff to come out Just for clarity zahif (as we clearly are in a legal minefield) I am very much the opposite opinion to those bloggers I'm referring to. It probably is clear, or a scan of the thread would make it so but I'm just covering myself  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 10:10:29 GMT
So it seems 'House of Cards' will end after the season in production. Whether it will be shown will depend on the way this case develops I suppose.
I think Spacey's career may be dead in the water for now. However Hollywood welcomed Mel Gibson (for example) back with open arms after a time so no doubt he will be back.
|
|
2,504 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Oct 31, 2017 10:12:41 GMT
Yup, the 'quiet dignity' of Spacey admitting he might have got drunk and tried to have sex with a 14 year old boy.
Its unwise to jump to his defence so readily, I doubt very much that their isn't more stuff to come out Just for clarity zahif (as we clearly are in a legal minefield) I am very much the opposite opinion to those bloggers I'm referring to. It probably is clear, or a scan of the thread would make it so but I'm just covering myself
Ha I gathered!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 10:16:31 GMT
I think Spacey's career may be dead in the water for now. However Hollywood welcomed Mel Gibson (for example) back with open arms after a time so no doubt he will be back. This time last year, the good folk of the USA elected Donald Trump as their President. |
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Oct 31, 2017 11:29:02 GMT
|
|
173 posts
|
Post by paplazaroo on Oct 31, 2017 12:13:41 GMT
Good to see the mods aren’t deleting posts with Spacey’s name anymore!
|
|
2,504 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Oct 31, 2017 13:13:09 GMT
Good to see the mods aren’t deleting posts with Spacey’s name anymore! Well, his statement makes it easier now he hasn't denied it! |
|
903 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Oct 31, 2017 21:33:27 GMT
I think Spacey's career may be dead in the water for now. However Hollywood welcomed Mel Gibson (for example) back with open arms after a time so no doubt he will be back. This time last year, the good folk of the USA elected Donald Trump as their President. That just shows the political right is more forgiving of the sexual assault of women than the political left. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Nov 1, 2017 5:58:44 GMT
This time last year, the good folk of the USA elected Donald Trump as their President. That just shows the political right is more forgiving of the sexual assault of women than the political left. Have you read today's news? It's all about power and this thread is asking us to think afresh about that, not to trot (sic) out our prejudices. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 1, 2017 7:02:28 GMT
This time last year, the good folk of the USA elected Donald Trump as their President. That just shows the political right is more forgiving of the sexual assault of women than the political left. Bill Clinton. |
|
903 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Nov 1, 2017 7:07:03 GMT
That just shows the political right is more forgiving of the sexual assault of women than the political left. Bill Clinton. I apologise for my dumb comment above. Is Clinton accused of sexual assault, though? I'm not aware of any of his numerous sexual encounters being non-consensual. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 1, 2017 7:13:55 GMT
I apologise for my dumb comment above. Is Clinton accused of sexual assault, though? I'm not aware of any of his numerous sexual encounters being non-consensual. It is old news and was documented at the time - several women accused him (including, harassment, assault and rape) while he was in a position of power as Arkansas governor. Particularly troubling was his closeness to the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein - you can see it all on the internet. I don't think it is political - note how in Westminster none of the opposition parties are really been very strident and demanding May sack her cabinet - they know they've got offenders of their own yet to be unmasked. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 7:19:49 GMT
I apologise for my dumb comment above. Is Clinton accused of sexual assault, though? I'm not aware of any of his numerous sexual encounters being non-consensual. He has been accused a few times. All the cases have been litigated, and serious doubt cast on the accusations. Just going from the Wiki entry - Juanita Broaddrick alleged rape on tv, but stated under oath no sexual contact had occured. Paula Jones alleged indecent exposure, and the case was dismissed by a republican judge as lacking legal merit. She rearised the allegations during Clinton's impeachment and was paid off. Kathleen Willey alleged non-consensual groping, though several of her friends testified she had sought a consensual affair with Clinton, and Willey was found to have lied repeatedly under oath. |
|
