Ear for eye

As a black woman

Who is so arrogant she usually
Always directs her own “plays”

And as she mainly works with black
Actors

The mainstream white press

Are not in any position
To criticise her work without fear of a backlash

However self indulgent and badly
Written it might be

She has a massive chip
On her shoulder

And it’s a shame she insists on hitting you over the head with it

In such a blatant and coarse way

I used to love her work

But this “play”
Shows how simplistic and bitter
She really is

The piece presents nothing new or ground breaking

Any message it thinks it has

Is made so badly and repeated to the point of boredom

And as a piece of writing it goes nowhere

Can someone explain to me the thinking behind her refusal to use initial capitals? I am genuinely interested. And what does the title “Ear for Eye” refer to - or does that become clear when you see the play?

Thanks. I should have been clearer: what is the thinking behind the refusal of initial capitals in her name. Still not sure I understand what ear for eye means but it may become clear when I see the play.

Thanks Foxa. Just googled why bell hooks is lower case and discovered that it is to shift focus from her name and onto her ideas. In my opinion the absence of initial capitals does nothing of the sort. In fact it makes you ask questions about the name - as I just did. I have reservations about hooks’ work (controversial I know). Although I admire her I dislike the way she publicly calls out writers like Terry McMillan for not being political enough.

41 - Ear for eye - Royal Court

A show split into three distinct sections, first off we get the UK and US perspectives of similar events - not annoying the police, taking part in a demonstration, being arrested for no reason - and then the second section sees an older white male and a youngish black female in a discussion (argument?) following a mass shooting and then in the final section we are read laws from the UK and US that discriminated against the black populations of the time.

The first section suffers from the repetition of the concept, its essentially the same three stories told twice but with subtle differences to highlight the differences between the UK and the US - which rolls along, its the weakest part of the play for me.

The second part of this show is outstanding, the white man being condescending and borderline racist as he refuses to listen and continually interrupts the points that are trying to be made - especially when they contradict his weltanschauung. Its a section that soars based on two remarkable performances on a revolving and almost bare set. We're drip fed the information about what has happened and its wonderful part that could easily be pulled out and stand on its own.

There were a couple of remarkable audience pops in relation to what was being said, an audience it has to be said that was a virtual sell out and which had everybody enthralled - no one left, no creaking seats. This was something different, something new, something that the tedious traditionalists wont have liked.

The third part is a video, and I have to admit to utterly hating video in theatre shows - SHOW me on the stage, if I want to see a film I'll go to the cinema. Despite that the content is horrifying as we hear anti-black laws from US as late as the 1950s and 60s read out to upsetting gasps from the crowd and then we switch to the reading of UK slave laws. Nasty nasty stuff.

There are some issues, the actors hanging around on stage in Part 1 makes it look like they have lost the wings and none of them really stand out as putting in a stellar performance. Part 2 removes the chorus and hits home with 2 beautifully crafted characterisations and as noted its the main selling point of this piece.

Overall its an enthralling 140 minutes straight through, no watch looking or bum shuffling on show here - an audience that was mainly held captive in the palms of the hand of the performers.

8/10