Writing in the Guardian, Hannah Jane Parkinson bemoans a modest reduction of the Arts Council’s budget:
This philistine government is betraying the arts.
It goes without saying that the 6% budget trim, £39m of a total £622m budget, is presented in the most ominous possible terms, using a four-year figure, presumably to induce gasps of outrage. We also get the line, wheeled out repeatedly by the Guardian, that,
The creative industries contribute £90bn net to the UK economy.
A framing that not only jars with demands for further public subsidy, but which slyly conflates actual, self-supporting businesses, including TV production companies, designers and games developers, with the kind of fare more likely to be subsidised by the Arts Council.
So far, so Guardian. And then there’s this:
There seems to be no recognition of how powerful the arts can be in educating audiences, reflecting current events, exploring different views and opening up dialogue. In the past year alone, I have enjoyed Nicholas Hytner’s version of Julius Caesar at The Bridge, influenced by Trump’s America; The Jungle’s tale of life in the Calais refugee camp; Alan Bennett’s Allelujah!, a celebration of the NHS.
Readers will note that the artistic projects deemed exemplary are somewhat uniform in their default politics, which seem unlikely to differ much, if at all, from those of the typical Guardian columnist, or the typical Arts Council employee, or indeed the typical beneficiary of Arts Council largesse. Perhaps, then, we can hazard a guess as to Ms Parkinson’s definitions of “opening up dialogue” and “exploring different views.”
[ Added via the comments: ]
The leftist lockstep of the arts and theatre establishment, and of recipients of Arts Council subsidy in general, does, however, produce moments of grim and inadvertent comedy. As, for instance, when the Observer’s Jay Rayner noted the “baffled silences” and the “almost total failure of imagination when it comes to working out what a play from the right might actually look like.” When pressed on this point, the suggestions by leftist directors were hypothetical productions that celebrate racism, sexism and rape. Because, clearly, that’s all that a non-leftwing play could possibly be about.
Publicly subsidised art and theatre will of course tend to favour a political outlook in which the subsidy it expects is most vigorously endorsed, resulting in uniformity and self-flattering parochialism. And so, we find leftist writers and leftist directors, all accustomed to decades of coerced public subsidy via overtly leftist institutions in a left-dominated part of the culture, claiming to be “dissenters” who are being “suppressed” when the level of subsidy fails to meet their expectations. And likewise, we arrive at the conceit that the rest of us will be educated by people who frame those who disagree with them in terms of absurd hyperbole – Trump as Caesar – or depravity – those imagined affirmations of rape.
I have enjoyed Nicholas Hytner’s version of Julius Caesar at The Bridge, influenced by Trump’s America;
LOL. Orange man bad!
LOL. Orange man bad!
It’s possibly worth noting that Mr Hytner, a “dismayed liberal,” championed another production, staged in New York, with an overtly Trump-like Caesar, a “demagogue… bent on absolute power,” and with “bouffant blond hair.” This play, we’re told, was seen by theatre-goers in “a borough that voted nine to one against Donald Trump.” And which, again, suggests that the theatre world’s definition of “exploring different views and opening up dialogue” may differ somewhat from yours and mine.
He was unable to name a single female newspaper columnist…
a) I am sure “leftist” was left out of the columnist descriptor, and Miss Parkinson sounds a bit upset he never heard of her;
b) I am guessing because of this his blood pressure is normal, and he has no bruises on his forehead from hitting it on the desk.
In good news, the regions have gained support, but access is still often limited to a certain demographic: older, middle-class, affluent and white.
There it is, the real beef, as if young, poor, POCs are somehow both discriminated against and worse off by not having access to the likes of upside down WOEG playing with cabbages.
with the kind of fare more likely to be subsidised by the Arts Council.
Is there a word for when you’re laughing *and* angry?
Is there a word for when you’re laughing *and* angry?
I think we need a picture of the mighty work in question:
It’s quite a thing to behold.
Is there a word for when you’re laughing *and* angry?
Needless to say, funding tat of this kind is by no means unusual.
an overtly Trump-like Caesar, a “demagogue… bent on absolute power,” and with “bouffant blond hair.”
In last season’s self-destructive flirtation with wokeness[1], the Stratford Festival in Stratford, Ontario, Canada staged Julius Caesar with a blonde female Caesar, coiffed and styled so as to strongly resemble Hillary Clinton. Thus making it clear that the Festival had successfully purged itself of anyone who understood either US politics or Shakespeare.
[1] The 2019 season features classic plays staged in classic manner, with all of the leads of the sex and race envisioned by the original playwright. The acting company’s size has shrunk by about a third, and nearly all of those MIA are various shades of non-white.
Is it me or do you not think Miss Parkinson resembles nothing so much as a rugby fly-half?
I think she might have missed her calling. No wonder she’s so whiney.
There seems to be no recognition of how powerful the arts can be in educating audiences. . .
. . . and so we’re going to make you sit through six hours of consciousness-raising socialist realism until you bloody well understand and pay us to make it stop.
…how powerful the arts can be in educating audiences, reflecting current events, exploring different views and opening up dialogue.
***
Perhaps, then, we can hazard a guess as to Ms Parkinson’s definitions of “opening up dialogue” and “exploring different views.”
None dare call it insinuation.
Actually, none dare call it official religion either, for its aim is to convey an exclusive, exclusionary psuedo-morality by pervasive, relentless means and to excommunicate unbelievers (if not arrest them outright for troublesome things like wrongspeak).
That kind of opening-up-dialog, these exploring, reflective, educational “arts”? Funny, if that’s what these arts were, they’d embrace this diversity of thought and expression.
Maybe they could elevate this thoughtful game of artful insinuation and lampoon the victim instead of using official weight to oppress him into the dirt.
six hours of consciousness-raising socialist realism
The default leftist tendency of the arts and theatre establishment, and of recipients of Arts Council subsidy in general, does produce moments of inadvertent comedy, of a sort. As, for instance, when the Observer’s Jay Rayner noted “the almost total failure of imagination when it comes to working out what a play from the right might actually look like.” When pressed on this point, the suggestions by leftist directors included hypothetical plays that celebrate racism, sexism and rape.
Because, you know, that’s obviously what a non-leftwing play would be about.
Remember Gordon Brown saying his favourite band were Arctic Monkeys, who “really wake you up in the morning”, and then he couldn’t name a single one of their songs?
And…
Jeremy Corbyn was slated for stating that Ulysses is his favourite book (people thought it pretentious), but at least it was evidence he reads for pleasure.
I have to give Jezza some credit here, he found a great way to get himself brownie points with leftist twerps, because none of the halfwits have read Ulysses and would not be able to question him on it.
…Observer’s Jay Rayner noted “the almost total failure of imagination when it comes to working out what a play from the right might actually look like.” When pressed on this point, the suggestions by leftist directors included hypothetical plays that celebrate racism, sexism and rape.
Testament not just to the left’s smug myopia and psychotic bias, but to society’s loss of foundational norms. Much of this comes from the right’s sloth and timidness too.
In the US “conservative” arts – the few that exist – tend to be meagerly produced partisanship that can’t but look instinctively defensive.
By now even the classics have been revised with postmodern insights. This tends to further isolate what few right-leaning arts appear, making them awkward parodies of themselves.
Basically normals can’t win an insidious contest.
Testament not just to the left’s smug myopia and psychotic bias, but to society’s loss of foundational norms. Much of this comes from the right’s sloth and timidness too.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but part of the problem is that even when a group produces a reasonably competent work of art, it is actively suppressed by the Leftist powers-that-be. See, e.g. Gosnell. Further, it’s not that there is no market for non-Leftist art. For all the criticism leveled at Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, it performed well at the box office. Leftist media insists, however, in lauding and rewarding it’s overtly didactic, allegorical Leftist media, despite its lack of profitability. Leftists would rather get an Oscar, scream “Fuck Trump” on national television and then repair to the après party progressive circle jerk.
Which brings us full circle to the question of “Philistines” cutting “arts” funding. If people really wanted to see this crap, they’d pay for it.
the left’s smug myopia
As noted before, publicly subsidised art and theatre will tend to favour a political outlook in which the subsidy it expects is most vigorously endorsed, resulting in uniformity and self-flattering parochialism. And so, we find leftist writers and leftist directors, all accustomed to decades of coerced public subsidy via overtly leftist institutions in a left-dominated part of the culture, claiming to be “dissenters” who are being “suppressed” when that subsidy fails to meet their expectations. And likewise, we arrive at the conceit that the rest of us will be educated by people who frame those who disagree with them in terms of absurd hyperbole – Trump as Caesar – or depravity – imagined affirmations of rape.
Leftist media insists, however, in lauding and rewarding it’s overtly didactic, allegorical Leftist media, despite its lack of profitability. Leftists would rather get an Oscar, scream “Fuck Trump” on national television and then repair to the après party progressive circle jerk.
Heh. To pass out those sanctimonious little awards wreaths, the films bearing the most of which being the ones you pass on first over at Netflix.
The left’s other talent is of course writing: Establishing those subtlest of framings designed to paint your archetypes as something between cartoonishly evil and merely questionable. Yet suddenly “there seems to be no recognition of how powerful the arts can be in educating audiences, reflecting current events, exploring different views and opening up dialogue.”
None at all. Except that it’s been going on for half a century and the engine that drives it, for a century more.
More fun with Everyday Feminism (language alert):
https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/07/be-proud-tight-asian-pssy/
And remember—not all women have the organ she’s talking about.
I am becoming more and more convinced EF is parody.
More fun with Everyday Feminism (language alert):
It would seem this article would be moot to a vaginaless woman. Further, the authoress, though “cisgender” also claims to be queer, so the size of male apparatus or what males prefer would also seem to moot, and she should have full control over the size of artificial apparati, so what she is really banging on about isn’t exactly clear.
I may be wrong, but I think the imperialist raping went east to west first. Genghis something or other as I recall, and as I also recall seeing as how Miss Anis (no jokes, now) is a Filipina I also seem to recall a whole lot of imperialist raping going on in the Philippines by another lot of Asians. Regardless, the real reason a lot of GIs prefer and/or marry women from the Orient is, with a few apparent notable exceptions, they are not raving feminist lunatics.
EF may not be a parody, but it is a veritable cornucopia of very oddball psychopathology.
Am I the only male to have never heard another man “spread the word” about enjoying rape? I’ve never even heard it 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand. The subject has rarely been mentioned at all, but I’ve never heard another man remotely suggest that rape was anything other then bad. I seem to live in a very different world to that imagined by feminists.
“…but I think the imperialist raping went east to west first. Genghis something or other as I recall…”
Not only Genghis, the Chinese were (actually still are. See: Tibet) quite keen on the old Imperialism racket. The difference being that, unlike white people, they’re entirely immune to accusations of racism or historic guilt.
Fair’s fair, Julius Caesar at the Bridge was brilliant; especially if you got tickets to be in the mob. Did nobody here see it?
Part of its brilliance though was that it used Trump-like iconography (and that mostly in the surrounding presentation — ‘Make Rome Great Again’ hats for sale in the foyer etc — there was very little of it in the actual play) without actually trying to distort things to make a didactic political point. So it felt relevant without actually being hectoring or patronising.
It was a far cry from, say, the work of Laura Wade or David Hare.
“Opening up dialogue” = hearing my leftwing opinions repeated by others.
I would casually wave over at The Book of Mormon as a pretty good example of a right-wing play, the creators (of South Park fame) are reliably Libertarian.
“Opening up dialogue” = hearing my leftwing opinions repeated by others.
Heh. Pretty much. Apparently, only we are to be educated and transformed – presumably, into something that Ms Parkinson and her peers would find less disagreeable.
…we arrive at the conceit that the rest of us will be educated by people who frame those who disagree with them in terms of absurd hyperbole – Trump as Caesar – or depravity – imagined affirmations of rape.
Trump as Caesar. The leftist arts having such scope, when they’re not being too clever by half with their exquisite, expert framing, in the case the over-wrought, simple-minded tripe – from various Alec Baldwins – those fictions always convey the contradiction of too much outrage and too little pertinence.
Funny thing is that DJT is probably more the anti-authoritarian and swamp-draining and for-the-little-guy than the entire cast of leftist and rightist potuses. Which raises the question, if you’re a raging projecting hysteric can you even remember your, as they charmingly put it, principles and values?
Trump as Caesar
Indeed part of the reason the the Bridge’s production was so good is that Julius Caesar is a play which resists simple divisions into ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’, and the production — to its credit — didn’t try to force one.
The acting company’s size has shrunk by about a third,…
Daniel, in addition to demonstraions of wokeness (I saw A Midsummer’s Night Dream where both weddings were gay unions) Stratford’s actors have taken to berating audiences with declarations of indigenous peoples unceded territory claims and custodianship of the land. Not a winning formula for boosting attendance.
The state of the arts in Britain does not make for good reading
That’s not down to lack of funding. It’s down to lots of bad art paid for with taxpayers’ money.
“Educating”, she says.
“an overtly Trump-like Caesar, a ‘demagogue… bent on absolute power,’”
Yet is was Obama who said, “I need to get this done, so I need more power”.
“the creators (of South Park fame) are reliably Libertarian.”
Leading Leftist critics to completely lose their minds. I don’t have any links to hand, but I’ve lost count of the articles I’ve read excoriating South Park for its “scattergun approach” and “inconsistency” because Trey and Matt are neither reliably Leftist or reliably live up to Leftist stereotypes about non-Leftists. They can’t get their heads around it at all. The media reaction to Cartman becoming an SJW was almost funnier than the show itself. (Whiny Cartman voice) “But he’s the bad guy…”
Is there a word for when you’re laughing *and* angry?
Learning.
E.G. By coming to this site, we’re learning.
If you know any Roman history, Trump as Caesar isn’t that far off the mark. Caesar was a populist who was resisted, and eventually killed, by a cadre of aristocractic insiders who were horrified at the way he appealed over the heads of the political class to the regular Joe in the street.
I’m not so sure about “right wing”, though I agree that Parker/Stone are not leftists. Every leftwinger I know adores it, and while I genuinely like Parker/Stone’s other contributions The Book Of Mormon always rubbed me wrong. Perhaps because literally every Mormon I’ve met has been unfailingly nice and well, good in the old fashioned sense. So gratuitously crapping on their religion – and attaining mega-hit status doing so – feels unnecessary and even cruel.
I mean, punch down, up, sideways – whatever – as much as you like. But it feels cheap when there are competing religions filled with sociopaths, charlatans, and mean-spirited hypocrites. Islam and Feminism spring to mind immediately.
Publicly subsidised art is an argument for absolute monarchy & the divine right of kings.
“I mean, punch down, up, sideways – whatever – as much as you like. But it feels cheap when there are competing religions filled with sociopaths, charlatans, and mean-spirited hypocrites. Islam and Feminism spring to mind immediately.”
Actually, despite what I said above, I’d go along with that. I haven’t seen The Book of Mormon so I can’t comment on whether it’s cruel or just a friendly send-up, but while the LDS belief system strikes me, brought up in mainstream protestantism, as downright bizarre, my criterion for a religion – or anything, if it comes to that – is whether, on balance, it does more good than harm in the modern world. I don’t really see that “why” should matter. And on that, the Mormons pass with flying colours. Unlike, as you say, plenty of others we could mention.
Trump as Caesar isn’t that far off the mark. Caesar was a populist who was resisted, and eventually killed, by a cadre of aristocractic insiders who were horrified at the way he appealed over the heads of the political class to the regular Joe in the street.
What, history? But the left simultaneously owns both academic intellectualism and playing to stereotyped appearances. Surely there’s no conflict.
(Of course, Jesus was an anarcho-capitalistic populist who was resisted, and eventually killed, by a cadre of aristocractic insiders who were horrified at the way he appealed over the heads of the religious and political classes to the regular Joseph in the street too. With its fealty to modern Israel – hearkening back to what were the statist Jews of Jesus’ time – the right has its conundrums too so I guess it happens…)
When pressed on this point, the suggestions by leftist directors were hypothetical productions that celebrate racism, sexism and rape.
So, the Sirat Rasil Allah then, right?
The state of the arts in Britain does not make for good reading
That’s not down to lack of funding. It’s down to lots of bad art paid for with taxpayers’ money.
I have read that in the Netherlands there are warehouses full of bad art: Nobody wants it but it cannot be destroyed because it was funded by the government.
Every now and then David posts one of these and it strikes me, yet again, that I agree with Mao’s policy of sending intellectuals to the rice paddies.
“almost total failure of imagination when it comes to working out what a play from the right might actually look like.”
That’s because with a few exceptions, for things like the movie version of Atlas Shrugged or the like, arts produced by people on the right are produced as art, not as propaganda.
Movies and shows which do portray “right” concepts, like individual responsibility, are rarely political. But when they are, they are usually discussions, not lectures.
The movie Captain America: Civil War was very much about “right wing” themes, discussing the lines between personal liberty versus government responsibility. It was clearly on the side of liberty over government, but it presented both sides, and it didn’t dismiss the pro-government argument, or those who supported it. It voiced their concerns honestly and considered them.
In contrast, art that supports “left” concepts seldom if ever considers any opposing viewpoint seriously. If an opposing side is presented at all, it is usually as a cartoonish, straw man portrayal that bears little resemblance to reality. The result is a one-sided lecture between virtuous and heroic left-wing heroes and evil, selfish ring-wing villains.
It’s not surprising that left-wingers don’t know what right-wing art would look like, because it usually presents a discussion of ideas, not a lecture. They assume that since they lecture, the right does too, so they keep looking for it and can’t find it.
Am I the only male to have never heard another man “spread the word” about enjoying rape?
Well, when you consider that the meaning of rape these days is any PIV (remember that old term from a couple years ago?) sex, yes. You are out of the loop on hearing how rape is enjoyable. There’s like movies and stuff. All rapey-rape-rape. And then those who would just as soon be hung for a sheep as a lamb themselves get all real-rape-rape rapey and thus push the edges of society toward more and more chaos so that the people long for a “benevolent” dictator to straighten things out. What are words for, anyway?
Ms Parkinson’s belief that publicly-subsidised art and theatre is challenging the worldviews of its audience, and doing it all so daringly, reminded me of the local taxpayer-funded city-wide art festival, for which very similar claims are made.
As I’ve mentioned before, the so-called festival is usually light on aesthetic content, but invariably heavy on leftist politics. You’re unlikely to find much that’s visually compelling or proof of great skill, but you will find lots to reinforce a Guardian reader’s worldview. One year we were treated to a “critique” of “international market forces,” a “critique” of privatisation and “neoliberal policies,” a piece that “highlights economic and social inequalities,” and a film about an attempt to unionise office cleaners. None of which could be described as particularly artistic, or indeed festive.
And this annual clown show is curated exclusively by lefties, features work by artists who are largely, if not entirely, leftwing, and attracts a small audience of people whose politics generally correspond with those of the artists and curators. Despite the inevitable guff about the art on show being “challenging,” it’s hard to see how any of the people involved are being challenged in any significant way. What we tend to end up with, year after year, is an in-group talking to itself, flattering itself, in a language of its own. A tiny caste of middle-class lefties leeching taxpayers’ money while telling each other how righteous and egalitarian they are.
For more on the Arts Council and its routine incineration of public money, this post and thread over at Artblog has quite a bit crammed in.
And just to make the rabbit hole deeper and twistier, there’s some related rumbling here.
The movie Captain America: Civil War was very much about “right wing” themes, discussing the lines between personal liberty versus government responsibility. It was clearly on the side of liberty over government, but it presented both sides, and it didn’t dismiss the pro-government argument, or those who supported it. It voiced their concerns honestly and considered them.
Ehhh, not so much. In fact it treads pretty lightly on those themes, being mostly about Cap and Tony’s conflict over What To Do About Bucky (by contrast, the muddled, hamfisted and cartoonish comic book event the movie was based on banged the politics drum loudly and was roundly reviled for it).
If you want to see true right-wing themes in a Marvel movie, look at the Iron Man films, specifically Iron Man 2. That movie nails its Objectivist colours to the mast early on. The sanctimonious government toad trying to expropriate Tony’s technology is played by sitcom actor Garry Shandling, and turns out to be a Hydra stooge.
specifically Iron Man 2. That movie nails its Objectivist colours to the mast early on. The sanctimonious government toad trying to expropriate Tony’s technology is played by sitcom actor Garry Shandling, and turns out to be a Hydra stooge.
Heh. As I said to The Other Half during a repeat viewing of the hearing scene, “There’s the premise for a film that would’ve been better.” (Though at least the Monaco ‘briefcase’ sequence was entertaining.)
“this post and thread over at Artblog”
Crikey, I inspired something. (Gotta admit, I was rather proud of “cargo-culture”.)
There’s the premise for a film that would’ve been better.
There’s the germ of a good idea that’s not well executed. I’m not sure if we have Jon Favreau to blame for that, or the screenwriters.
One thing I’ve noticed about the FeigeCU is that they’ve done a very good job of personalizing the tedious politics in the source material they’re adapting. Civil War is We Need To Talk About Bucky, Black Panther is Daddy Issues II: Electric Boogaloo. It makes me cautiously optimistic for Captain
Resting Bitch FaceSuperman vs. DarkseidMarvel. No, the other one.literally every Mormon I’ve met has been unfailingly nice and well, good in the old fashioned sense
I have found the same; they also tend to be educated, cosmopolitan (due to international outreach work) and successful. If you want to find a USian who speaks Japanese, send for a Mormon.
The theology/mythology of Mormonism might seem like a right load of old trousers but the religion works, it makes for better happier people. Which is more than you can say for SJW Atheism or even the dreary old CofE (although I might be repeating myself)…
This philistine government is betraying the arts.
The philistines are employed by the Arts Council.
The philistines are employed by the Arts Council.
Yes.
The whole thing has an air of surreal inversion. And so, if you think that instructions on folding bus tickets or randomly tearing up grass fall short of high art, and that bankrolling London prostitutes to “self-advocate” possibly isn’t great art either, or indeed the best use of taxpayers’ earnings, then you may be denounced as both an uncultured heathen and morally primitive. Often by middle-class Londoners who expect their niche leisure activities to be subsidised by working-class shop assistants in Leeds.
(Gotta admit, I was rather proud of “cargo-culture”.)
It was, I think, bang on.
Arguably Captain America: The Winter Soldier makes the small government case more. Yes, it’s perfectly possible to give govt peers that could do all sorts of arguably Good Things, but remember that is perfectly possible for govt to be taken over by Bad Men who would then be able to use those powers to do Bad Things and probably make one of them a Bad King…
Looking back at the comments on the hustle post made me curious as to whether Dame Liz had gone on to some other “worthy” appointment. A glance at her Eli page suggests not and also has this absolute gem:
Surreal Inversion
Now THAT’S a band name. Works as a pretty good description of life in 21st century western civilization as well. Which is what makes it a good band name. Inspired even.
I have read that in the Netherlands there are warehouses full of bad art: Nobody wants it but it cannot be destroyed because it was funded by the government.
Wasn’t that the short-lived experiment when the Dutch government announced it would buy all art and bypass the grant-giving process altogether?
Grifters practically cleared out art-supply houses in a mad rush to slap paint on a canvas and make a quick buck. They were racing to the art-buying agency before the paint even dried.
Nowadays the grifters have to “earn” a government grant before they can make a quick buck on the taxpayer’s back. So we’re back to normal.
Jay Rayner noted the “baffled silences” and the “almost total failure of imagination when it comes to working out what a play from the right might actually look like.”
Well, there’s Every Good Boy Deserves Favour, Night and Day, on television Professional Foul…
Well, there’s Every Good Boy Deserves Favour, Night and Day, on television Professional Foul…
Anything written in the last 40 years?
Serious question, in light of the Thought Police, are any snarky (but certainly not “hateful” as “poking fun at” does not equal “hate” to any normal person) comments from this side of the big ditch liable to get someone on the other side in deep kimchee ? IOW, have they invented “hate” by association yet ?
The scariest part is “perceived by the victim” (“victim”, oy gevalt) which is utterly unable to be disproven.
I will proactively denounce myself, just in case.
Anything written in the last 40 years?
Rock ‘n’ Roll’?
Squaring the Circle was only 34 years ago.
But let us be kind and pretend The Hard Problem never happened.
Meanwhile in Nashville, the Tennessee Arts Commission brings us some Official Government Brand™ Shakespeare.
Official Government Brand™ Shakespeare.
I’m not seeing the issue. (I’m assuming Caesar’s melanin levels aren’t relevant to this telling of the story.) Though the second item here, by Douglas Murray, seems apposite.
Though the second item here, by Douglas Murray, seems apposite.
The latter, in this case, without doubt; we all know they would scream murder if, in reverse, they cast Owen Wilson as Othello.
So basically “Hamilton” on the Tiber, and you have a Stuchbery version of Rome wherein evil wypipo conspire to kill a powerful black man. Yeah, no politics there.
Official Government Brand™ Shakespeare.
I’m not seeing the issue. (I’m assuming Caesar’s melanin levels aren’t relevant to this telling of the story.)
It’s not in this case. It’s who is playing the role of Julius Caesar in this Nashville, TN staging that’s supposed to be the draw (Eddie George having been a former running back — and a darned good, and popular, one — for the NFL’s Tennessee Titans).
evil wypipo conspire to kill a powerful black man
If your production of Julius Caesar has either the conspirators as goodies and Caesar as a tyrant they defeat, or the conspators as simple baddies and Marc Anthony a hero taking his rightful vengeance, then you’ve done so much violence to the play already that any casting issues are simply irrelevant.
“Jay Rayner noted the ‘baffled silences’ and the ‘almost total failure of imagination when it comes to working out what a play from the right might actually look like.’”
Of course, as I’ve said before, part of the problem is that they can’t readily define what “the right” is.
If your production of Julius Caesar has either the conspirators as goodies and Caesar as a tyrant they defeat
Part of the problem is that in the grand historical sweep of things, this is exactly what happened. However one wants to interpret the character of the conspirators, Gaius Iulius did still cross the Rubicon at the head of an army.
I will proactively denounce myself, just in case.
My experience has been that self-denouncers are motivated by hostility and prejudice against protected groups. I demand you denounce yourself for that, too.
[Heh heh, the trap is laid…]
[Heh heh, the trap is laid…]
Oh shit, was that my out-loud voice?
[Heh heh, the trap is laid…]
Oh, the trap is “laid”, you couldn’t have said “set”, noooo, you had to use heterosexist patriarchal rape language. I demand you denounce yourself.
“Set” would imply it acquiescence, as in “I’m all set for you, darling.” Get your mind out of the gutter.
Or move over if there’s room.
…move over if there’s room.
Get your mind out of the gutter.
Might big talk from someone who has violently culturally appropriated the name of a poor migrant Chinese cook (who was a nuclear brain engineer in his home country) colonized and oppressed by the Cartwrights. Besides, my mind is not in the gutter, it hasn’t gotten to such a lofty level yet.
“Part of the problem is that they [the left] can’t readily define what “the right” is.”
‘The right’ is anything and everything ‘the left’ is not, and since what the left believes changes from moment to moment then this causes the right to change as well. The left is really of the mentality, “You are with us or you are against us (and thus an enemy).”
Might big talk, Farnie boy?
Well, it’s a might big gutter, now ain’t it?
Shove a bum, chum.
Part of the problem is that in the grand historical sweep of things, this is exactly what happened. However one wants to interpret the character of the conspirators, Gaius Iulius did still cross the Rubicon at the head of an army.
This is about the play, though, not the history; and in the play there are no uncomplicated heroes nor villains.
(Which is what makes it totally unsuitable as a choice of play if you want to push one particular political point of view, and if you try to use it that way, then you’re an idiot)
pst314 @ November 26, 2018 at 18:21: I have read that in the Netherlands there are warehouses full of bad art: Nobody wants it but it cannot be destroyed because it was funded by the government.
Communist-bloc regimes produced endless volumes of the “writing” of regime leaders, expounding Marxist-Leninist doctrine at great length. Thousands of copies were printed up by state publishers.
The Collected Essays of Wladislaw Gomulka and Famous Speeches of Comrade Ulbricht accumulated in warehouses. An American speaking with the custodian of one such warehouse asked why the unwanted books were not merely pulped. “Who would dare give the order to destroy such books?” the custodian answered.
“Then what do you do?”
“Every now and then we have a little fire.”