Wild Duck-Almeida theatre

Ooh, that's interesting, Nash.  is he an awful person?  Perhaps fame has gone to his head.  How disappointing.

Check Pg 5 of this thread. The red lettering.

I completely agree and had considered both saying so publicly and reporting the original post but as someone else has noted, there seemed already to have been tacit approval from some members and many similar posts have passed without comment.

So for the record, and whether anyone thinks I am a prude or not:  I do not wish to see comments on or images of anyone's body or body parts, regardless of their gender/sexual orientation or mine.  I am here to talk about productions, not the physique of the performers.  I think if this were a public forum there would be outrage and that there is a marked double standard in that some are - rightly - very quick to criticise comments about the appearance/body shape of female performers but any about men are not only condoned but encouraged.  Suppose the photo had shown a woman in her underwear and in a similarly provocative pose?  Not acceptable, so neither is this.

I don't think anyone is a prude for saying so. I like a picture of a hot man as much as the next. BUT that photograph was very sexually suggestive and as many of us browse in public/in work that would have been very embarrassing for some- even resulting in trouble (my former employer had no issue with me browsing the forum in quiet times, but if my boss had walked past at that point she would not have been amused)

As much as there is a double standard on the men/women debate at times (a bigger one than perhaps getting into here is worth). There's also an increasing double standard in Moderation. We already know that certain members get away with anything (particularly when they delete accounts and come back), but there is both a sense of some Mods going after certain members, and letting others slide. I know they decide a lot by committee, for which I am grateful. But increasingly moderation feels from some members of the team 'what I don't like' rather than 'what falls under our guidelines'

Although some Doctors up the thread have made it clear they disagree, I think saying that somebody is attractive is completely reasonable, even if they're a woman (I seem to recall some good-natured admiration of Samantha Barks in the Pretty Woman thread that offended precisely nobody) and it's not a double-standard to consider it reasonable to remark on how attractive a particular man is. It's not a double-standard either to consider "so-and-so is extremely attractive" okay and "I would like to discuss in some depth the shape of a particular body part belonging to a performer" to be crossing the line, particularly as the latter is rarely "doesn't so-and-so have an extremely elegant nose" and far more often "doesn't so-and-so have huge thighs in that skirt, my awful friends thought she was a poor casting choice".

Also, I don't think it's relevant to *this* thread, but there's a clear line to be drawn with regards to remarks on what one would like to do with an attractive person. "Admire them" is fine, '70s-sitcom-level innuendo is as much about the wordplay as the desire behind it and thus far only seems to offend people who can't bear terrible puns, but anything more specific and/or explicit is pretty gross and definitely over the line.

It's maybe an imperfect tool, especially as the moderators are very clearly a bunch of disparate personalities who'll all have different places where they would choose to draw the line, but really we should all be into using the Report button. Maybe the mods will all think "hey, this post is reasonable", but if twenty-five people see fit to report a single post, they all have enough sense to see if something is not going down well with the community as a whole. Instead of banging on for years about a couple of posts that you alone considered entirely unacceptable, hit "report" on those posts when you see them. Worst case scenario, the mods will consider your reported post not worth doing anything about, and then you'll know for a fact that it counts as acceptable content and you won't need to weirdly bring it up over and over again in barely-relevant conversations in the future.

This is a lovely response - full credit to you.

I thought this was wonderful, if a little overlong. Great acting and adaption of the play.

Oh dear. Icke’s agent won’t like that.

And Billington as usual gives away most of the plot points, so please don't read it if you are going to the play and are not familiar with them all .. I should add, I agree in part with some of his comments although as per my original post believe that the workshop nature does enlighten the play in many ways (despite being too long as a "workshop") and ultimately works really well.

Evening Standard 4 stars
The Stage 5 stars

Referring to

Guardian review

Parasitic

Is an excellent term to describe

The work of Robert Icke

I wonder I didn’t think of it myself

I actually didn’t mind
The Wild Duck

And would give it 3 stars

I thought it was ruined
By the awful acting of the two lead men

But overall it is interesting

However I agree
That Icke

Leeches off existing works

And I would like to see him
Direct an actual new play/ piece of writing
By somone else

I wonder how long
These adaptations
And “versions”
Will carry on