Review, Thinking Bigly online

Laura Kressly reviews Thinking Bigly:

Between Ben Yeoh and David Finnegan, there’s an impressive array of interests, knowledge and skills. Theatre, economics and climate change are among them. Their lecture-performance amalgamates these three topics into an engaging, informative and interactive presentation that gives a wide-angle view on what we can do to save the planet.

Though normally performed on stage, their live stream version still has a lot of engagement with the audience. A live chat on the right third of the screen allows viewers to answer questions, polls, and talk amongst themselves. The left two-thirds of the screen is dominated by the graphs, images and charts of a PowerPoint presentation, with Yeoh and Finnegan each in their own box in a corner of that space. Constrained by the range of their computer cameras and microphones, they represent each of us in all of this – an individual on their own has limited impact, but together we are mighty.

Though they acknowledge that there is vast inequality, that major corporations and world leaders bear the brunt of responsibility, and every eco-friendly choice seems to not be so eco-friendly after all when you consider it more broadly, their show is one of optimism. Its core holds a reassurance that cultural change can happen remarkably quickly in the grand scheme of things, and there are absolutely things we can do to help move it along. The pair perkily employ a few examples to back themselves up, which is comforting when faced with the frighteningly steep incline of the line that logs the kilotonnes of carbon in the air.

Both informative and entertaining, it leans more towards a lecture than a performance – at least it does in this digital form, what with Yeoh and Finnegan not able to be in the same space. Though there’s plenty to look at, there isn’t much scope for staging. However, the ability to chat with other audience members without disrupting the show adds an interesting dynamic that fosters a sense of inclusion and informality. It’s a welcome change from the typical, silent rigidity expected in most British theatres.

Given the success of TED Talks in their video format, lecture-performance seems particularly suitable to on-screen viewing. On the other hand, this flexibility is more permissive of a lack of theatricality, to the extent that it provokes reflection on how much the form is or isn’t theatre

From her site here. More on Thinking Bigly here.

OMG first used in 1917 in a letter to Winston Churchill

OMG was used in a letter in Winston Churchill in 1917. 🤯

Adjustments.jpeg

John “Jacky” Fisher was an admiral and naval innovator, who began World War I as First Sea Lord but resigned in 1915.

“…During his time as Second Sea Lord (1902-3) Fisher began putting into practice his reforms for the navy; his major achievement at this time was the Selbourne Scheme of entry and training for officers in 1902, which was a common entry and training for all naval officers, and to ensure that in the age of mechanisation all officers would have a familiarity with engines. In 1903-4 Fisher was Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, from which position he could superintend the establishment of the Royal Naval College at Osborne, where new Cadets received their initial naval training. He also served on the Esher Committee, whose recommendations, accepted by the Cabinet, called for a reorganisation of the War Office, and Committee of Imperial Defence.

On the 21st October 1904, at the age of 63, Fisher became First Sea Lord. His main preoccupation was to prepare for the coming of the war with Germany, and developing a more powerful fleet He was responsible for the launch of the first ‘all big gun’ fast battleship, using the new turbine engines. HMS Dreadnought was launched in Portsmouth in 1906, combining great speed with immensely increased gun power. It rendered most of the fleet obsolete at one stroke. Fisher also oversaw the developments of the submarine with its torpedo weapons. The rapidly changing face of the navy brought hostile criticism from conservative parties both within the navy and without. His greatest rival, Lord Charles Beresford, appointed Commander in Chief of the Channel Fleet, became more and more estranged with Fisher and at odds with the Admiralty. Finally, when his command was terminated in 1909, he made public his criticisms of Fisher and his reforms. Fisher remained in office until January 1910 but was succeeded by Sir Arthur Wilson, who was sympathetic to his reforms. During his period in office, he was awarded with the Order of Merit in 1904, appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) in 1908 and in 1909, was raised to the peerage with the title of Baron Fisher of Kilverstone, a Norfolk estate.

In 1912 he became chairman of the Royal Commission on Oil Fuel. This had been another of his interests during his term in office and resulted in the adoption of using oil fuel in all new ships being constructed. In October 1914, he returned to the Admiralty as First Sea Lord, in which time he was involved in ship construction. He became at odds with the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill over the proposed Dardenelles campaign. Fisher believed that the persistence in attacking the Dardanelles would jeopardise the success of the major naval strategy of the war, but was forced to concede and allow the campaign to take place. As the campaign unfolded and became clear that it was a hopeless one, he became more and more discontented and resigned his office in 1915. …”

A piece of theatre blog history, Megan Vaughan's book on theatre blogs

-History of theatre blogging cf. economic blogs

-What does a playwright need?

-My own small part in the history of theatre blogs

-David Eldridge vs Chris Goode redux 

There’s a new book on the history and influence of theatre blogs by Megan Vaughan, Theatre Blogging: The Emergence of a Critical Culture. Recommend if you are interested in blogging or have read any of the early days theatre blogs.  

Turns out I’m part of a tiny piece of internet history being amongst the first wave of theatre bloggers. 

Vaughan writes:

“...In 2005, playwrights Benjamin Yeoh (Theatre and Writing) and Stephen Sharkey (O, Poor Robinson Crusoe!) started new theatre blogs, while director Paul Miller (My London Life) decided to concentrate his personal, journal-style blog on theatre. They were joined by Ben Ellis (Parachute of A Playwright), an Australian playwright based in the UK at the time, and Andy Field (The Arcades Project), who was initially a student in Edinburgh but would move down to London within a year. In 2006 they were followed by theatremaker Chris Goode (Thompson’s Bank of Communicable Desire), and David Eldridge (One Writer and His Dog), whose recollections began this chapter. 

While those UK bloggers were all artists of one flavour or another, 2006 was also the year in which two audience members, Andrew and Phil, became so infuriated by the Old Vic’s production of Resurrection Blues that they only went back after the interval because they had ‘always wanted to boo at the end of a show’ (West End Whingers 2006). While the booing was purportedly cathartic in some respects, it didn’t quite relieve the pain of the experience for Andrew and Phil, who started their irreverent review blog, West End Whingers, just a couple of days later. [BY: Quite a few of us ended up meeting up in real life and the WEW ended up coming to my own play - which was nervy as it was my theatre blog friends]  

A month after that, Natasha Tripney, a freshly graduated writer who had begun contributing to The Stage and music website MusicOMH, started her blog, Interval Drinks. The London theatre blogosphere was gradually catching up with New York and Melbourne, just as the New York bloggers were experiencing their first moment in the spotlight…”

This phenomenon was echoed within the Economics blogosphere. 

In 2005, Mark Thoma started his economics blog - that Noah Smith charts, link end - which spawned a similar wave in economics.  That those economics blogs have spawned even wider influence than theatre is mostly to do with the size of the “market” but the shape of the progress is the same.   

A democratisation of ideas, a faster moving debate by interested professionals and amateurs: fierce opinions thrashed in almost real time. 

I think Megan Vaughan argues that blogs are alive and well in their new forms.  I think blogs are alive but that peak blogging in its old form has been eroded by podcasts, twitter and the like. (I think she agrees) 

For me it’s a moderate shame - as I loved blogs so much - maybe blogs will resurge in some form at some time - and certainly they are still valuable - maybe some time of new  forums or smaller communities or the hyper-meta-blogs like Tyler Cowen’s or Star Slate Codex (it’s noticeable to me that Patrick Collison thinks good blogs could need more incentives… see end)

Vaughan selects a number of important blog reviews and debates to include in her book and it’s recommended for that f you are interested (despite the high price of c. £25).

Personally, I would have loved some interviews with the many current bloggers and practitioners who are still around and were blogging at the time.  Maybe there will be a follow up. 

At the time the memories I have most clearly are the intense debates between David Eldridge and Chris Goode about theatre (simplistically) “devised and ensemble” vs “writer-led”. She covers this and the subsequent podcast in 2018 where they somewhat reconcile. But she doesn’t convey the intensity of the debate I felt as a young theatre maker. Two voices I highly respected debating it out and seeing those debates echo in theatres and makers and spaces of the time.  I don’t think I was the only one. 

As a recent arrival in Twitter land, I can see some of that still now - but not in the nuance of before and it seems that it’s more noisy now in an inferior way as oppose to more diverse - which it is as well. 

I will leave you with one of my first 2005 blogs - redux -  May 2005:

I’m studying under Jane Bodie (a great playwright) as part of the Royal Court Writers’ programme. One of the questions we are asking is:

Qualities that that playwrights need?

I think it’s a question writers should come back to, every now and again, whether they write plays or in another medium. Of course, there’s no “correct” answer, and whatever answer one does have will probably change day-to-day, year-to-year, relationship-to-relationship…

We came up with (amongst others):

life, language, experience, imagination, sadness, joy, emotional access, flair,

perception

observation

analysis

commitment

articulation

Interestingly, Jane suggests articulation is the one thing she can teach something of. The rest might be unteachable.

Today I would strongly add:

Empathy

Curiosity

And it almost goes without saying an idea of how people communicate. 

Links:

My £1K microgrants programme

Amazon link to Megan Vaughan’s book @churlishmeg

Noah Smith’s tribute to Mark Thoma and history of economics blogs 

Jane Bodie 

Chris Goode + David Eldridge on podcast, blog here.

Chris Goode on Twitter @beescope

David Eldridge on Twitter @deldridgewriter

Patrick Collinson Questions:

Could there be more good blogs?

It seems that they heyday of of blogging is passing. If so, that's unfortunate. Blogs can be a remarkably efficient mechanism for disseminating ideas and facilitating discussion and debate. Twitter is good, too, but there's lots that blogs are great for that Twitter can't replace.

Part of the problem with blogs is that they're less rewarding than Facebook and Twitter: your post may perhaps get some thoughtful responses but it doesn't get immediate likes. And part of the problem is, of course, that writing a good post is much harder than writing a witty tweet.

Are there incentive structure tweaks that yield more good blogging?

Follow me on Twitter below:

State of the National Theatre

Does  the UK’s National Theatre reflect the UK? Divisions over Brexit, elite metropolitans vs countryside; populism/commercial vs artistic; identity wars - gender; state funding vs commercial funding. Leftist vs Rightist. Small state vs large state. [Not so far as to look at State Capacity Liberterians, cf. Dominic Cummings (?) H/T Tyler Cowen]

Helen Lewis takes on these ideas in a review of the National Theatre as an organisation and its conflicts with a dose of the Arts Council (after an interesting take on how the state effectively subsidises the commercial by allowing artists to develop in the state sector first).

Lewis notes the new language at Arts Council of “relevance” instead of “excellence” although with some push back that one can be both excellent and relevant.

Many commentators (theatre practitioners in my feed) on Twitter have critiqued the binary and polarised juxtapositions - which reflect debates on gender, and Brexit; and places David Hare (as a proponent of canon, traditionalists and, supposedly, an elite; remain) opposite Stella Duffy (as community, Leave). 

Comments like: 

NT primarily artistic or social? Can’t it be both?

Excellence or relevance? I write plays to be both.

I think those comments have validity, but I don’t think Lewis was proposing the nuance or spectrum here.

Lewis was asking if the conflicts at the NT reflected conflicts at a nation(s) state level. That the NT itself is a state of the nation play. And in that, Lewis draws some comparisons that do seem to reflect this idea. (Toilets one battle ground). This I think is interesting for non-theatre makers. Or, once you move past the opposing construct, it gives some intriguing insights into the conflicts that an organisation like the NT has.

Do our institutions reflect our society? Often institutions are more ossified and slower moving than where society is, in my observations. So the idea that the NT is of its time (and that some of its debates eg Peter Hall vs the Unions) stretch back in history.

On that idea, if the left did win the battle of culture and the NT is a result of that, but if the right have won the ideas on market economics - a binary that I’m not entirely sure I agree - and are currently re-shaping institutional funding - does the NT survive because it is as cherished as the NHS or as important as science funding; or does it decay attacked by left and right (cf. BBC) for losing of relevance - neither excellent nor popular rather than both excellent and popular?

Given Lewis interviewed some of our major theatre figures like Stella Duffy, David Hare, Rufus Norris, Dan Rebellato - I would have loved longer notes and insights into what they actually thought.

Full article in the Atlantic here.

Lewis’ take on subsidised theatre subsidising commercial.