That is a truce we can definitely agree upon. And if you ever do make it a reality, I would absolutely love to discuss it with you x

Anytime you want to exchange MSS... I love a crit's from people that are 'objective' (i.e. are saying they love it coz they like me...)

I have to ask... Is 'MSS' just an author thing (my early training at Writers dot Net) or do others know that it means ManuScriptS?

Playfull - interesting review. Some bits mirrored in MrsR's initial report - others at variance. As always, a play changes colour as it runs; maybe this one has moved from scarlett to hunting pink?

Nikip - I still say that, TPTT aside, it's not one I'd go to see; based upon the marketing, the reviews and the programme. And you HAVE to accept that this is purely my choice.

Everyone - my drinking gambit failed. I forgot to factor in that drinking 9 pints of applejuice cunningly disguised as Strongbow put me well up on the 'being drunk' stakes (which I have to say I acted superbly!), but well down on another effect which maybe I should have foreseen.

No, not that one (although I detect ominous rumblings) - the body has a great way of turning sugar into energy. And when you're sat at a bar, the energy has no purpose - so you get very, very hot!

I left at 10pm sweating like a p1g and wearing the 'I'm A Lightweight' hat I'd had made for my neighbour. But I owned up to the deception and it was a laugh!

AdMan,

But are your teeth itching?

You + Apple Juice + Acting = Ad Exec that wants to be drunk seeking a toothbrush.

Sorry about the drip feeding but trying to post thoughtfully and juggle other stuff…..

Q&A stuff to follow –

Just wanted to say I met Kate Betts and her husband after the Q&A and they were thoroughly charming. She was obviously passionate about her play and he was obviously passionate about her! They knew all about the forum and the recent heated ‘discussions’. He had, unknown to Kate, visited us many times and had a badly scarred tongue to show for it. She had commendably managed to stay away until her recent posts.

I asked her about the Tech stuff – the use of the projections – and she said she thought
that it supported the play not dominated it. But she also said that she thought the play would work just as well without it.

We then discussed the scenes with the children. I stated that I didn’t like the kissing scene, partly because it revealed the incest too early in the play. She said it is always difficult to decide when plot elements should be revealed and she had thought long and hard about when this particular theme should be introduced.

She went on to say that starting the play with two scenes involving the children was seen as quite a brave thing to do and I got the impression that this was entirely her idea.

I told her that I am not a big fan of using children in ‘grown’ up plays generally and
asked if she had considered writing it without using the children in the flash back scenes. I told her that I much preferred the present day scenes and the tragic and painful childhood events that drove the play could have been revealed through the adults dialogue. possibly to greater effect! Kate was thoughtful for a moment then said she hadn’t thought of that but she could see what I meant…………………I told you she was charming!

I warmly congratulated her on both winning the competition and pulling it off, writing a proper play, and actually having it produced in the west end!

Well,

It sounds like the lady (and none can doubt that she is a real 'lady') has a true playwright's talent.

I'm sorry that WotPlay feels that way about the forum (and I'm suprised, having reviewed his posts, that we didn't twig he knew as much as he did - especialy the SF comment).

But most of all, I am so impressed that Kate Betts is still so grounded and willing to look at her MS from others' viewpoints.

Thanks Playfull,

I look forward to your comments regarding he Q&A - and one hopes the questions I asked.

Many thanks

My mate Caicos tells me there has been a sudden rise in temperature in Siberia, he thinks it is the result of all the hot air being generated by this topic. He is also rather anoyed that his old mates Ads and Jay seem to be getting a lot of stick for airing their opinions, especialy from someone called nitpick. Ads and Jay are quite right on their views of the play, I agree with them wholeheartedly, I to like a rattling good comedy, and like jay, I am adverse to throwing away money on seeing a play when I have not formed an opinion of it. with the price of seats in the West End what they are, to do otherwise would be a shortcut to bankruptcy. If the theatre is to survive in any meaningful guise then it has to be rescued from the kind of insensitive and intellectully bogus prat who thinks suicide and a bit of incest is just the thing to take the tiny tots to see

The Q& A’s

Lasted about 35 mins, so could have been a little longer for me, I suppose people have to get home though.

Kate, Sonia and the cast were introduced by a lady from the Stage Online, who chaired the discussion. She started by asking a few general questions then threw it open to the audience.

And no, I didn’t put my hand up.

I didn’t take notes so apologies for generalizing, running answers together and inserting my opinion of what might have been unsaid as well as what was actually said. I suspect that you, like me, are only really interested in the answers given by Kate and Sonia.

When asked why she had become involved SF stated that she had come from a background of being enjoying producing new works by new authors in the publicly subsidised theatre sector and was keen to see if this could be achieved in the West End. So when Jan Younghusband from C4 approached her she thought this is not going to be easy but “I was dammed if I was going to let anyone else do it!”

She went on to say that the whole thing had reinforced to her just how difficult trying to put new works from unknown authors on in the West End really was. She gave honourable mention to a few theatres that do have a reputation for trying new authors and have developed a loyal following of customers who are prepared to risk their time and money in support of such works. She suggested that a lot of the people present were probably drawn from these groups, then sincerely thanked everyone for coming.

I got the impression that SF had hoped that this project could start something similar in the west end, that she and the New Ambassadors could have built a reputation and a following for exciting fresh new writing.
I also got the impression that this was a dream that had possibly now been dispelled.

SF also mentioned that due to various reasons she doesn’t read unsolicited scripts sent to her and will only read scripts presented by agents or trusted sources.

When asked what she would have done differently given the opportunity she said, book a shorter run and not schedule for the summer against the world cup and Wimbledon in a heat wave.

She earlier mentioned that the length of run and audience figures would have meant the play would have been classed a success in the sort of venue new writing is usually shown in.

The problems of publicity were also discussed – the difficulty in fitting everything into the compressed time frame constraints imposed by the TV program – the lack of a title, author or cast in any pre premier publicity.

SF said it was only an amazing effort by all involved that got the play produced, and that various difficulties including the serious illness of the original director would normally have resulted re scheduling the opening but due to the TV commitment they had to stick to an almost impossible timetable.

When asked about the critics Kate said that she was happy that they had dealt with her on a professional level – she had been dreading reviews that might patronise her, such as ‘good effort considering’ and ‘everyone tried their best’ – she said the reviews were mixed and was happy with them. SF added that she has produced over 60 plays and that actually the reviews were better than average. That only a couple had really rounded on the play.

When asked if she was going back to teach Kate said she needed to pay the mortgage and so would be doing.
Kate was asked how much of her original ended up on the stage. Her answer was very similar to the one given earlier on the forum. Though one of the actors did give the impression that some workshopping had gone into the final scene.

(Personally I thought the very end of the play felt a little rushed and could have done with a little more dialogue and a little less plate smashing- which I assume was the workshopped element).

SF stated that she really believed in this play and felt very strongly about the ‘rightness’ of doing it and that Kate had done a ‘fantastic’ job.

Sorry if the above is a bit incoherent but it is all from memory.



I did ask Sonia after the Q&A had finished how many of the 3500 scripts she had read herself, and about her statement in the program that she had been disappointed with the standard of submission.

She said that she read the 20 page submissions of the top fifty, then the complete scripts of the final ten. She repeated as in the program that she was really disappointed with the scripts at this stage. I realised, she said, that it is easy to write a good 20 pages the problem is writing the rest of the play.

Late now I hope there is something of interest here.
If I think of anything else I will post it tomorrow.

Ever playfull

All good stuff Playfull - I feel like I was there!

Two questions;

1/ Did you feel that you came away from the Q&A with any more information or insight than you had before? Much of these issues, and even the comments, have been covered by the media and tv programme - so I wondered if those in the audience asking the questions had broadly see neither!

2/ When you say that Mr Betts got a scarred tongue, do you mean from the Forum or from the PT? Because I've looked back through all his posts and I can't really see where he was treated badly!

Hey playfull - your review has almost made me want to see the play again, cause some things have definitely been changed! Although I agree with you totally regarding the projections and the children's scenes. But it sounds to me like the darker aspects have been toned down.

quote:

Originally posted by playfull:
The self harm, incest, rape and gory suicide. All nowhere near as bad as I had expected.
The self harm is mentioned only.

Is there still the bit when he sees the cuts on her arm? There used to be numerous references to it.

quote:

The adult brother and sister struggle, confused and distraught, but I was not clear (as they were fully clothed and it was not gratuitous) if a rape was supposed to have taken place at all.

That has definitely changed (although the issue was always about attempted rape, not actual) - originally the brother strips off to everything except his underpants (which I think was more about keeping the actor's modesty) and rummages in her skirt and is about to rape her only then freaks out.

quote:

There was some blood used in the suicide scene but it wasn’t exactly Pythons ‘anyone for tennis’ Sketch.

It was quite graphic when I saw it - slow lacerations down both arms and blood pouring down both. Again, sounds like it's been tamed a bit.

Also had problems with the children kissing - and would point out that the night I watched it it WAS the brother and sister from the TV program - despite the option to alternate with other kids. It could be just because it was opening night - maybe they haven't done it since. So so wrong.

It's definitely interesting to see how the play has changed - for the better it sounds like.

Interesting; two factors disturbed MrsR the most - the incest and the self-harm - and Playful suggested to Kate that she could have covered the incest in the dialogue. Kate said she hadn't thought of that.

But I'm sure I remember a clip in TPTT TVS where SF was having a go at Kate because her characters were talking about these bad experiences but we, the audience, weren't seeing any action! It was when SF was banging on about wanting more 'events' from the play.

As far as I recall from the VT (and I've loaned it out so I can't check) I don't think the incest and self-harm was actually staged in the first draft.

Will try and answer J & Mrs-r's points later but in a rush now - So i would just like to clear up the point Adman has brought up.

When i suggested to Kate that the Children could be removed and in my (personal) opinion the play would be the better for it, she thought about it politely, and then humoured me by saying she hadn't really thought of doing it that way. - The point i was making was not that i had provided her with a new insight but that she delt with my clumsy comment very graciously. (possibly the teacher in her?)

I thought my 'i told you she was charming' comment made that point. Sorry for any confusion!

Playfull - No, I got that; the point I was making was that, as far as I can recall, the two synopsis points that seem to have caused most controversy among my circle (graphic self-harm and incest on stage between two children who seemed to be actual siblings) were not, I think, in Kate's original draft as on-stage acts. I think - but stand to be corrected - the depiction of these acts was added at SF request.

quote:

The oft quoted criticisms.

The self harm, incest, rape and gory suicide. All nowhere near as bad as I had expected.
The self harm is mentioned only.
The adult brother and sister struggle, confused and distraught, but I was not clear (as they were fully clothed and it was not gratuitous) if a rape was supposed to have taken place at all.
There was some blood used in the suicide scene but it wasn’t exactly Pythons ‘anyone for tennis’ Sketch.

Thanks Playfull, for your review on the show and your feedback on the Q&A session. I wish I had waited a bit longer now and gone to the Q&A session myself.

Looking back on when I say the play with my friends, I can say that we never thought the incest/attempted rape scenes were a problem. Also we didn't think the suicide scene was gratuitous. From where I was sitting I could clearly see the blood packs on Maxine's arms! Even if I hadn't seen that, it was all perfectly in context. Perhaps someone who is easily shocked or a bit puritanical may have had issues with a lot of that stuff, I don't know?

If the real brother and sister were used to play the younger siblings, then that is definitely wrong but I'm pretty sure that was not the case on the night I went to see it. Also the "incest" on stage between the siblings was the "film star kisses" right? I can't say that made me feel uncomfortable at all. Obviously this is not a play for children (they'd probably be bored sitting for so long!) but totally suitable for most adults (except maybe the kind I mentioned above). You see much, much worse on TV.

Having said that, I'm also not a fan of children on stage unless it's specifically a childrens show I'm watching, although I LOVED it when the Mike took the children by the hand at the end and walked away with them. That tugged at my heartstrings.

quote:

Obviously this is not a play for children (they'd probably be bored sitting for so long!) ... Perhaps someone who is easily shocked or a bit puritanical may have had issues with a lot of that stuff, I don't know?

So now - by association - I assume (as the voice of dissention that started this) that I'm not merely a silverback, but a prude silverback?

CK33 - forgive me if some of this post sounds harsh after this first para - but my kids will sit and have (happily) sat through Macbeth; murder, ghosts and war. But I don't want to answer my 9 year old girl when she asks 'Why is that boy having sex with his sister?', nor put up with her nightmares about people slashing their arms open.

And if it's NOT a play suitable for children, then why show supposedly intelligent and mature adults scenes of a young child stripped down to his underpants attempting to screw his sister to get the idea of how that might affect the sister in later life? Do adults need to see it to know it happens?

Seeing it doesn't shock me, I assure you. I'm an ex-cop, and I've seen stuff that would make many people throw up - they did me! Do you fancy picking up the remains of a 20 stone man hit by a train at 70mph? Pulling a body out of a canal that's been there 6 weeks? Arresting a mentally disabled 14 year old for stabbing their abusive father-in-law to death with a steak knife and then carrying on eating their meal over the blood-soaked table and with the same knife? Watching the post-mortem of a lady who poured petrol over her body and set light to a match? Watching a colleague jump out of a first floor window because, effecting entry, he has fallen directly into the 8 week old decayed body of a man who died up against a full-on central heating radiator? Having to be in a room when a WPC is attempting to calm and reassure a 16 year old girl who has been raped by two men - at the same time, if you get my drift? Being at an ID with a woman who had to confirm that the man on the slab IS her husband, who jumped off a 200 foor tall multi-storey carpark earlier that week? I have. And I assure you, your stomach hardens really quickly and the last thing you become is a prude!)

But seeing it acted on stage doesn't add to my knowledge. I don't need that to understand the premise of the effect on the child in later life. Frankly, I'd rather listen to really, really good dialogue - which all the reviews suggest KB can write - showing the mental effect on the character later as an adult.

But then, that's me. I'm a puritan. Not a voyeur.

I have no idea if you're a puritan and/or a silverback (and I couldn't care less if you were). I was actually "speaking" to Playfull when I wrote that last post and that's why I quoted some of his words at the beginning of the post.

However I will say adman that if you had bothered to see the play you would know that:

a) no boy has sex with his sister on stage
b) no young child strips down to his underpants and attempts to screw his sister

I'm not sure how you expect me to react to your long list of things that have made you throw up and I'm not entirely sure why you posted it. If it's to point out that the police have to witness shocking things then, duh!, I know that, I'm the daughter of a cop.

I've just read that dashed-off post back to myself and realised that it sounds patronising, assuming as it does my own experiences and pre-assuming the lack of yours - sorry CK.

But the point remains; does any adult, regardless of their background, need to see these things to know they exist and that they have an effect? And - more importantly - is the effect, not the event, not the dramatic point?

If it's a show for family viewing, then graphic portrayal is unacceptable. If it's not, then it's unnecessary. Or at least, unneccessary on any basis other than pandering to the adult voyeur.

Discuss!

CK - our posts crossed!

Underpants / siblings engaging in sexual acts; I'm merely going on MrsR's report of the play which I have no cause to doubt!

'Bothering' to see a London play does, as Jay points out, costs us family non-Londoners several hundred quid. It's not that I can't be 'bothered'. I choose not to spend that sort of money on a play I already have good reason to believe I wouldn't enjoy, preferring to spend it on plays I WOULD enjoy!

And, simply to make issues even, I also couldn't care less what your father does! I was merely pointing out that my personal experiences do not make me a puritan, as I seem to be one of the sole voices saying 'I wouldn't see it because of ther incest/self-harm' depictions to which you refer!

quote:

Perhaps someone who is easily shocked or a bit puritanical may have had issues with a lot of that stuff, I don't know?

As you say later ck33 - you are talking to Playfull, but your implying things about other people who have written on this forum so they are going to respond to it.

I can assure you I am not easily shocked, neither am I puritanical. And I get annoyed that voicing an opinion about disliking a theme has me swept off with such a generalisation. I could easily argue that someone who enjoyed such scenes was sick and sadistic - but I don't, because it's blatantly not true. I don't even have an 'issue' with the subject matter, I just didn't like it. Plus, in the version I saw I don't think it was handled particulary well - but as we've now gathered the play has changed since its first night, so we're probably at crossed purposes.

Oh, I would like to apologise for some confusion I think I've caused. It's the adult brother that strips down to his underpants, not the younger. Sorry if I implied otherwise!

quote:

I don't even have an 'issue' with the subject matter, I just didn't like it.

MrsR - I wish you worked for me, in advertising. You have a knack (and you've done it to me several times!) of saying what I want to say in 1% of the words - you'd make a great headline writer!

quote:

I'm not sure how you expect me to react to your long list of things that have made you throw up and I'm not entirely sure why you posted it. If it's to point out that the police have to witness shocking things then, duh!, I know that, I'm the daughter of a cop.

CK - I've read this again this morning and I've realised that you're absolutely, 100%, spot-on bang-on right about what I wrote! It was totally and utterly unneccessary for me to detail the unpleasant things a police officer has to do for you to know that they have to do unpleasant things! You're an adult and you don't need the 'shock horror' detail to know that nasty stuff happens - which is why you gave me the 'duh' response!

I apologise to you and, in doing so, I also rest my own case. QED!