wickedlover

I am going to receive a huge amount of negative comments for this but it is my opinion and I am entitled to it - lol. I comment on this discussion board about shows I have seen or have opinions about - it's a discussion, but I have noticed of late that lots of people have set up theatre blogs where they "review" productions they have seen. Some comments on these boards are simply links to their blogs e.g. "I loved this show, more on my blog at blah blah blah". Now these people are entitled to their opinion - everyone has them, but why should I (or anyone else) be interested in their opinion? What qualifies them to "pass judgement" on a show? I see lots of theatre and have practised it in my time and probably more qualified to comment than most but wouldn't presume that anyone would be interested in what I have to say other than the odd comments on this board which invite discussion. Of course there is no need to click the link, no-one is forced to read these peoples ramblings or worse "raves" from "fans" of particular actors who will countenance no criticism of their idols. It appears everyone wants to be Mark Shenton (who seems to have invented the 9 day week with his theatre going) without his experience, knowledge and trained eye. Theatre producers are even using twitter and audience "comments" on their publicity material now - usually when they cannot find "raves" from the legitimate critics. Why would I go to see Viva Forever because "Sharon" thought it was " bloody brilliant"? So an appeal to all these bloggers - just stop. Enjoy (or otherwise ) your theatre trips and tell your friends but the rest of us aren't interested. Rant over - lol.

I am not up on any latest news re the "Stephen Ward" (it won't end up being called that) new show, but I think it would be extremely unlikely that the name of Profumo is only supposed to be going to be mentioned once, as per post somewhere above. Where was that information from? But I am really not inclined to be negative for the sake of it. My original impression was that this is a bit of a challenging (for want of a better word) subject, but I think I can see where ALW is coming from in choosing it. I have never been one of the ALW detractors, not because I like everything, but because enough of what he has done has been SO good that he has earnt his place in history already and the common petty spite only reflects badly on those who indulge in it. "Originality" and/or innovation (albeit everything derives from something else in one way or other) is predominantly associated with youth. ALW isn't going to compete with youth, and he shouldn't have to. He is at a different point in his career. There isn't a place for criticism in that, it is just the natural way of things. And if the silliness seen so often re everything being supposed to need to be "original" was real, then even Shakespeare should be supposed to have to be discarded.

And re ALW's "Stephen Ward", he is the enviable position of being able to suit himself and subsidise himself. Personally, I think it is a bit of a shame that it seems he has some difficulty being advised, but it is his ballpark. And I will be interested to see what comes of it anyway, even if I don't like it. Someone above referred to "Sunset Boulevard" as "stodgy", which I can actually agree with to some extent re aspects of the show, but I still think it's good and I don't think the Don Black and Christopher Hampton collaboration was too bad at all, whatever the American criticisms.The title song isn't just my favourite ALW song, as long as sung well, it is one of my favorites of all time. So I am intrigued to see what they come up with again.

There is a whole generation (or three) who won't now have even heard of the Profumo affair, though, let alone Stephen Ward. But his is an intriguing story. I have seen it quoted that ALW has referred to him as a "scapegoat", and, in truth, that is the one thing that is pretty irrefutable. He WAS the scapegoat. But that doesn't mean he was necessarily a complete innocent. The truth will probably never come out in entirety, although I suspect there will be a flurry of interest when the file does eventually comes out of official wraps. His trial and suicide effectively let the lid be put back on a can of worms that had far greater potential to do damage than was ever made public, even though it ruined careers and arguably brought down a government. The Profumo affair, itself, was only the tip of the iceberg. There were lots of convoluted rumours and allegations, all at the height of paranoia re the cold war, which was a very dangerous situation. But how much was real and how much was paranoia and how much was just made up, to expedience, to sell a story? Was the talented and charismatic Stephen Ward, at the heart of the highest London society, actually guilty of anything other than being convenient? That he wasn't, certainly seems to be the popular take now, but he was a ridiculously obvious target for intelligence agencies of all sides. There is no question that he will have been scrutinised by MI5, but was it really more than that? Was he working for them? Was he working for the Russians? Was he really running a call girl service for the elite of society at all? And whatever he was doing, was any of it at the instigation of MI5, the KGB, neither, or both? History might eventually clarify, but it wasn't publicly known then and it still isn't known now. Scapegoats are presumed to be more expendable, but that isn't a given, and that still doesn't mean he wasn't involved in a bigger game. So the book of the effective rise and fall of Stephen Ward could be angled in various ways. I am hoping it won't be a whitewash, ergo effectively the rise and fall of an innocent man hounded to death. It will be more interesting if some of the other allegations are explored. The whole cold war theme didn't work too well for "Chess" though.

Just booked too, looks really interesting.