Shakespeare and stuff

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
April 23.—Mr. and Mrs. James (Miss Fullers that was) came to meat tea, and we left directly after for the Tank Theatre. We got a ’bus that took us to King’s Cross, and then changed into one that took us to the “Angel.” Mr. James each time insisted on paying for all, saying that I had paid for the tickets and that was quite enough.

We arrived at theatre, where, curiously enough, all our ’bus-load except an old woman with a basket seemed to be going in. I walked ahead and presented the tickets. The man looked at them, and called out: “Mr. Willowly! do you know anything about these?” holding up my tickets. The gentleman called to, came up and examined my tickets, and said: “Who gave you these?” I said, rather indignantly: “Mr. Merton, of course.” He said: “Merton? Who’s he?” I answered, rather sharply: “You ought to know, his name’s good at any theatre in London.” He replied: “Oh! is it? Well, it ain’t no good here. These tickets, which are not dated, were issued under Mr. Swinstead’s management, which has since changed hands.” While I was having some very unpleasant words with the man, James, who had gone upstairs with the ladies, called out: “Come on!” I went up after them, and a very civil attendant said: “This way, please, box H.” I said to James: “Why, how on earth did you manage it?” and to my horror he replied: “Why, paid for it of course.”

This was humiliating enough, and I could scarcely follow the play, but I was doomed to still further humiliation. I was leaning out of the box, when my tie—a little black bow which fastened on to the stud by means of a new patent—fell into the pit below. A clumsy man not noticing it, had his foot on it for ever so long before he discovered it. He then picked it up and eventually flung it under the next seat in disgust. What with the box incident and the tie, I felt quite miserable. Mr. James, of Sutton, was very good. He said: “Don’t worry—no one will notice it with your beard. That is the only advantage of growing one that I can see.” There was no occasion for that remark, for Carrie is very proud of my beard.

To hide the absence of the tie I had to keep my chin down the rest of the evening, which caused a pain at the back of my neck.

April 24.—Could scarcely sleep a wink through thinking of having brought up Mr. and Mrs. James from the country to go to the theatre last night, and his having paid for a private box because our order was not honoured, and such a poor play too. I wrote a very satirical letter to Merton, the wine merchant, who gave us the pass, and said, “Considering we had to pay for our seats, we did our best to appreciate the performance.” I thought this line rather cutting, and I asked Carrie how many p’s there were in appreciate, and she said, “One.” After I sent off the letter I looked at the dictionary and found there were two. Awfully vexed at this.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1026/1026-h/1026-h.htm


Ironically ..., None of which has any relevance at all to a genuine complaint about dishonest and misleading advertising


I know that avoiding the question of whether dishonest and misleading advertising is leading to increasingly desperate measures

Where do you stand on dishonest and misleading advertising?
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
If you buy a Mars Bar, open it up and find a Snickers bar in the wrapper ... Do you find that acceptable
If you went to a performance advertised as Macbeth and discovered that it's actually Coriolanus, or a performance advertised as being in English and discovered it's actually in Italian, or a performance advertised as being live and discovered it was actually a film - then you might have a substantial complaint. If you'd related your experience as an amusing anecdote and stopped there you might have got some sympathy. But to bang on for 9 pages...

Stop a moment and think about the realities of running a commercial theatre. You decide on a programme and book the artists a couple of years ahead. About a year before the opening of the season you start publicising the shows, and start selling tickets 9 months or so before the opening of the season. By this stage the director and the set designer might, if you're lucky, have started roughing out designs and a concept. But to produce advertising that shows an over-literal potential audience member what the production is actually going to look like you need rehearsals.

Here's a rehearsal diary. http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/di...actor/archive/lady-macbeth-played-by-eve-best Generously, the cast had five weeks of rehearsal before opening night - including one week without the director.

Attending any artistic performance is always, and necessarily, a two-way act of generosity between artists and audience. Five minutes isn't enough to engage in any meaningful way.

Oh, and I'd still be interested in your thoughts about the incidental music to Downton Abbey. Did you switch off in disgust because the period costumes in which the soap opera was played were accompanied by 21st century music? Despite the show being advertised as a period show?
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
Where do you stand on dishonest and misleading advertising?
I don't think you've got a leg to stand on - and it's a very, very dull subject in the context of theatre. You over-interpreted a bit of advertising, and for your own reasons have taken umbrage.
 
Thank you

Yet again illustrating the point that people are unwilling to condemn dishonest advertising because it illustrates a pathetic misunderstanding of Pooterism

If it is a genuine complaint supported by the legal authority it cannot be "Pooteresque"
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
Ve


Very good @Katherine .
I don't often go to a thatched, open air theatre so that was a pleasant experience.

The performance was set in the1880-1900 era going by the costume. The cast were all Irish, so I wasn't expecting that.

The story was easy enough to follow, with enough toilet humour to satisfy me!

Mrs Dave has seen different productions of it and she says it was more aggressive than the other ones she's seen.

I enjoyed it, Mrs Dave thought it was fabulous. This is what I'd hoped for when I had the idea to get the tickets.

I also knew where Palestine is....

Irish actors! Oh no! Taming of the Shrew is set in Padua, not Ireland! You've been the subject of misleading, dishonest, knavish, advertising! Complain to Southwark council!

Anyway, delighted that you enjoyed it.
 
Just over there, to the left...

So you sidestep the question,(to the left) again illustrating how avoiding the question also avoids the validity of genuine complaints about misleading advertising and dishonesty and the blatant misunderstanding
 
Last edited:

Flying_Monkey

Recyclist
Location
Odawa
So you sidestep the question,(to the left) again illustrating how avoiding the question also avoids the validity of genuine complaints about misleading advertising and dishonesty and the blatant misunderstanding

Yes, it's a disgrace! You should complain to someone and get a refund. You signed up for a fun and friendly cycling forum, yet you here you are being openly mocked. Mocked! Someone must be held accountable...
 
I don't think you've got a leg to stand on - and it's a very, very dull subject in the context of theatre. You over-interpreted a bit of advertising, and for your own reasons have taken umbrage.

So.. An Internet warrior's opinion outweighs the legal opinion ?
 
Yes, it's a disgrace! You should complain to someone and get a refund. You signed up for a fun and friendly cycling forum, yet you here you are being openly mocked. Mocked! Someone must be held accountable...

You are absolutely correct..the lies and avoidance are a disgrace




Perhaps the ones who have had their posts removed, lied, made a number of allegations they have then refused to substantiate, the hit and run insults typical of others who then ran away when challenged, ,those who have refused to answer simple questions about dishonesty in advertising because it shows their stupidity?

Especially (and given your post... ironically) there are more supporting my position than against it!


I think I will give more credence to those who don't lie, make things up and perform hit and run insults
 
Last edited:

swansonj

Guru
Cunobelin: to answer your question, I am against dishonest advertising.

I am, however, not persuaded yet that the advertising in question was dishonest.
 

swansonj

Guru
So.. An Internet warrior's opinion outweighs the legal opinion ?
Potentially, yes. You appear to be demonstrating double standards. When legal opinion lands in what we consider the wrong place, for example over cycle helmets, contributory negligence, appropriate sentences for motoring offences, etc, we have no hesitation in saying that legal opinion is wrong.
 
Potentially, yes. You appear to be demonstrating double standards. When legal opinion lands in what we consider the wrong place, for example over cycle helmets, contributory negligence, appropriate sentences for motoring offences, etc, we have no hesitation in saying that legal opinion is wrong.


What we have here is the original complaint

The difference here is the dismissal of the complaint (even when supported and legally enforced) as "Pooteresque", which raises the ironic misunderstanding of the term and about the legitimacy of challenging advertising.

A blatantly unsupportable position. illustrated by the avoidance of answering the question about the acceptability of dishonest and misleading advertising, and he fact that it should be unacceptable

How would you feel if a genuine complaint about dangerous driving and the individual found guilty was dismissed as "Pooteresque"

That is the reality here
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom