 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Old comment edit
"Esseldine not Essendine"?! Where did you get *that* idea from? Please refrain from making edits based on nothing more than hazy recollection! 81.110.86.44 01:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Double bill and triple bill edit
Am I in error in wondering if "double bill" leads readers to imagine the two plays were done on the same night rather than on alternate ones? Tim riley (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Interesting OR edit
I have deleted this recent addition by an IP:
- Beneath the light comedy is a more serious depiction of the adverse effects of fame. Those around Garry are dependent upon his fame while at he same time he needs them to maintain his celebrity. His surname Essendine is an anagram of ‘neediness’.
It plainly can't remain in the article, being uncited original research, but I think it is worth a mention here. The anagram is new to me, and I don't think the authors of any of the twenty or so books about Coward on my shelves have noticed it. I don't imagine we have any reason to suppose Coward knew of it, but it nonetheless bears mentioning on this talk page, I think, as an interesting curiosity. Tim riley talk 20:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I did a google search and got many hits, including this.
- Here is something about the "effects of fame" idea. This too. Also this. And this. And this. Also this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- By all means add something on those lines, I'd say, as you have good citations. The anagram, though, must probably remain mentioned here rather than on the article page. I suppose I must add a sentence in the Autobiographical section that in the current Old Vic production Joanna is turned into Joe, and is played by a man. God save us from clever clever producers who think they know better than the author. Tim riley talk 21:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The gimmicks of a short-running production? edit
Tim riley’s note read: “Thank you for your well meant addition, but please consider why the gimmicks of a single short-running production should be recorded in an article about the play, and discuss on the article talk page if you wish to persist.”
This refers to a conversation about whether to record the 2019 Old Vic's production editing of the script and gender-swapping. There's a lot to unpick in Tim's comment.
Some arguments in favour of adding the information:
1. Gender-swapping is not necessarily a 'gimmick' - Various kinds of casting fluidity (for want of a better term) are happening enough in theatre to merit inclusion. The 2019 revival of Sondheim's Company springs to mind. Hamilton too (the biggest theatre production on the planet). Whole plays are being written to be played by actors of whichever gender. To call these developments ‘gimmicks’ is not only a value judgement, but ignores theatre history.
Furthermore, the page already includes Peter Hall's assertion that Coward 'must have wanted...those love affairs [to be] about homosexuals'. The Old Vic production carries that thinking forward.
2. A ‘short-lived’ production can still be significant - There's an implication in Tim's comment that 'short-lived' means unworthy of note. If that is the case, where is the bar set? (a three-month run? Six months? A year? An international transfer?) This production was directed by one of the most influential theatre directors in the world (Matthew Warchus), featured a global star (Andrew Scott) and was broadcast internationally under the NT's Live programme as a showcase of British theatre. That is significant.
- An ephemeral gimmick like this is not sufficiently notable for mention, in my view. I should be glad to know what other editors think. Tim riley talk 14:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Tim riley. The gender-swapping in that production was not WP:NOTEWORTHY. The fact that this is happening with some frequency on the modern stage makes it of *less* importance to this article, not more. I agree that the Old Vic's production is carrying Hall's thinking forward, but the Old Vic production is just one among many productions of this show, and adding this detail would over-weight this production in the article. See WP:BALASP. It may be that you can mention it in a more general article, say History of cross-dressing or breeches role or some article that deals with the modern history of theatre, but it is not of importance to the subject of Present Laughter. Also, I agree with riley that a short-lived production is generally less important than a long-running production. The bar for noteworthiness is set to different levels depending on how frequently the show is produced and at what level. If it is a play that is revived frequently in the West End and on Broadway for long runs, then short runs will be of less noteworthiness. If the show has had few revivals, then a short revival with a notable cast and director will be given more weight. In addition, revivals are nearly by definition less important, in an encyclopedia article about a play, than the original production. Unless most of the major reviewers thought that the gender-swapping was incredibly innovative and important, it just doesn't merit a mention in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think that's right. If rewriting Coward's text becomes a regular event this 2019 production can be cited as the thin end of the wedge, but if we are spared further such distortions there is no call to mention this one. Perhaps worth revisiting in a few years' time. Tim riley talk 17:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, especially if subsequent revivals and/or reviewers state that revivals are making certain changes because Warchus made them in this production, then it could be mentioned that this production was the origin of important changes that later bacame standard in revivals of the play. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think that's right. If rewriting Coward's text becomes a regular event this 2019 production can be cited as the thin end of the wedge, but if we are spared further such distortions there is no call to mention this one. Perhaps worth revisiting in a few years' time. Tim riley talk 17:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Tim riley. The gender-swapping in that production was not WP:NOTEWORTHY. The fact that this is happening with some frequency on the modern stage makes it of *less* importance to this article, not more. I agree that the Old Vic's production is carrying Hall's thinking forward, but the Old Vic production is just one among many productions of this show, and adding this detail would over-weight this production in the article. See WP:BALASP. It may be that you can mention it in a more general article, say History of cross-dressing or breeches role or some article that deals with the modern history of theatre, but it is not of importance to the subject of Present Laughter. Also, I agree with riley that a short-lived production is generally less important than a long-running production. The bar for noteworthiness is set to different levels depending on how frequently the show is produced and at what level. If it is a play that is revived frequently in the West End and on Broadway for long runs, then short runs will be of less noteworthiness. If the show has had few revivals, then a short revival with a notable cast and director will be given more weight. In addition, revivals are nearly by definition less important, in an encyclopedia article about a play, than the original production. Unless most of the major reviewers thought that the gender-swapping was incredibly innovative and important, it just doesn't merit a mention in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
List of Garry portrayers in the Lead section edit
I'm very puzzled as to why some editors here seem to believe some revivals are worth mentioning in the intro, but others are not (all professional productions starring notable actors, incidentally).[1] For instance, the Andrew Scott revival, despite being filmed and shown as "event cinema" in cinemas across the UK, is apparently not considered notable enough to be mentioned. I find this very odd. I'm all for non-notable local productions not being listed (including the one in which I played Garry, naturally!), but this seems to be nonsensical. It seems to me like certain editors have decided on the "definitive" list and won't brook any changes to it. What exactly makes a revival notable enough to be included? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- My own rule of thumb is that reviewers of later productions refer back to them as reference points or even benchmarks. Others may think differently. Tim riley talk 14:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly, some revivals are more important than others, based on how long they ran, size of the theatre, how starry the cast was, what the critics said, how often they are mentioned in reviews of later productions, etc. The Lead should contain an "overview" of the article (see WP:LEAD); that is, it should highlight the most important things stated in more detail later in the article. As for Scott, I think you make some good points about the importance of his production. Can you compare it with the productions in which the other Garrys starred in terms of the criteria I mentioned in my first sentence? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Given Scott has just won the Olivier Award for his performance, I think excluding him from the lead really would now be ridiculous! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly, some revivals are more important than others, based on how long they ran, size of the theatre, how starry the cast was, what the critics said, how often they are mentioned in reviews of later productions, etc. The Lead should contain an "overview" of the article (see WP:LEAD); that is, it should highlight the most important things stated in more detail later in the article. As for Scott, I think you make some good points about the importance of his production. Can you compare it with the productions in which the other Garrys starred in terms of the criteria I mentioned in my first sentence? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Fine with me, too, but please be more careful with your edits. I had to fix your edit to remove the excess "and". -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sure if you reread what you just wrote you'll realise it was just a little patronising. Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced editors like you and me. Thanks for fixing it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fine with me, too, but please be more careful with your edits. I had to fix your edit to remove the excess "and". -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sure if you reread what you wrote, you will see how rude you were. "I find this very odd.... this seems nonsensical... certain editors have decided... and won't brook...." Instead of attacking other editors, just explain what your reasons are for requesting a change, and then a discussion can ensue without hyperbole and exclamation marks like the above "ridiculous!" We are spending our valuable time to write a high quality encyclopedia and don't need poorly reasoned attacks on our judgement as odd or nonsensical or the other accusations you made. It is hard enough to keep off the vandals without having to put up with attacks made for no good reason. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Since when does an editor need to discuss a change on the talkpage? If we did that for every change we'd never get anything done. Your statement that you "don't need poorly reasoned attacks on our judgement" suggests that you think you somehow have a greater right to make such judgements than other editors. I'm sure that with you experience you know this is not the case. I'm sure that with my experience you know that I know what I'm doing without being patronised. This is a pointless discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sure if you reread what you wrote, you will see how rude you were. "I find this very odd.... this seems nonsensical... certain editors have decided... and won't brook...." Instead of attacking other editors, just explain what your reasons are for requesting a change, and then a discussion can ensue without hyperbole and exclamation marks like the above "ridiculous!" We are spending our valuable time to write a high quality encyclopedia and don't need poorly reasoned attacks on our judgement as odd or nonsensical or the other accusations you made. It is hard enough to keep off the vandals without having to put up with attacks made for no good reason. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Apparently you have forgotten what actually happened here. You Boldly added Scott to the Lead section. I disagreed with you and Reverted, per WP:BRD, suggesting that if you wished, you could open a Discussion on the Talk page. You did so, and then both Tim riley and I explained why we thought that, at that point, Scott did not belong in the Lead. I never said that all edits need to be discussed, only disputed ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Prizes edit
An editor has added a section called ‘Awards and nominations’. I think this is wholly inappropriate and have deleted it. The awards were not for the play, but for the production or the participants, and singling out just one production of the numerous revivals is WP:UNDUE. There have been rather a few award-winning productions of King Lear and Romeo and Juliet, but nobody in his right mind would add a section on ‘Awards and nominations’. There is no more excuse for puffing this one production than there is for the Shakespeare plays. Happy to discuss if any other interested editors have a view. Tim riley talk 08:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that the Awards section is detrimental to this article, giving undue emphasis to the awards for a single revival of the play. We already state in the text that Scott won an Olivier for his role, which gives the key encyclopedic information in context. Adding the very prominent section on awards gives a misleading impression of what is important about this play, its original production and its many revivals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)