Jump to content

Sergei Polunin - news and discussions - cont'd


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, alison said:

Shame about the shoddy and sensationalist reporting.  But what on earth took them so long?  It's not as if those comments are remotely new.  Why start selling the tickets in the first place if they feel so strongly about it?

Think it’s called lobbying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 406
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

11 hours ago, alison said:

Shame about the shoddy and sensationalist reporting.  But what on earth took them so long?  It's not as if those comments are remotely new.  Why start selling the tickets in the first place if they feel so strongly about it?

 

God knows I’m not a natural defender of Polunin, but this kind of thing actually makes me uneasy. It’s one thing for people to lobby against public money being spent on people whose actions we disapprove of but have yet to be demonstrated to be illegal (I’m thinking of the Paris Opera Ballet cancellation here), but I don’t enjoy the spectacle of pitchfork mobs threatening to shame companies into boycotting other companies or enterprises, as I assume from the timing has happened here. What’s more, it’s pretty shameless of London Theatre Direct to be attempting to take the moral high ground at this late juncture.

 

Instead, my favoured course of action is simply to vote with my feet and withdraw my own custom from the true culprit. Given enough numbers it works!

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the same mentality that "no platforms" lectures or debates.   Recently a group of Teachers I am part of, who band together in this area for performances, workshops etc. were proposing a "Thriller" workshop with two dancers from the show, "Thriller Live".  When I asked the other Teachers how they thought this would sit with parents in view of the recent tv programme and allegations, they nearly all replied that nobody cares.  Tbh I was a little shocked!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, Lizbie.  Personally, I would never pay to see Polunin again;  not only because of his stances on politics/sexuality/physical appearance, but also because I haven't enjoyed his solo work.   However, to remove this choice from others, in a so-called democracy, isn't right.  It's like when people were complaining about La Bayadere at the beginning of the season....that it's un-pc, colonialist, shouldn't be shown, blah blah blah.   If it offends you or you don't like it, don't go.  But don't anybody dare tell me that I can't go.   For those people who don't find Polunin's comments offensive, or to whom it doesn't matter what he says, but what he does artistically, don't take away their freedom of choice.   It's paternalistic and I personally am sick of things being banned or pulled because they are deemed un-pc or offensive.  Let me choose for myself what to see and what not to see.  

 

Rant over!

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We either have free speech or we don’t. It’s not selective.  “I may hate what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. “

 

I will make very clear that I hate any kind of prejudice, but I am all for allowing people to vent their bile, prejudice and hatred in public.  It makes them look ridiculous, but more importantly if they are allowed to say what they think that is a lot less dangerous than consigning them to doing it in other ways, and in secret.  As Lizbie said above, I vote with my feet.  If I disagree with someone's take on things, or think they have been offensive to others, I won't go to see them.  Simple as that.  

 

People should be allowed to have debates and disputes, not just be shut down and repressed.  That's when danger happens. If things are out in the open, they are easier to deal with.

  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sim said:

People should be allowed to have debates and disputes, not just be shut down and repressed.  That's when danger happens. If things are out in the open, they are easier to deal with.

 

More than that - who gets to decide what is acceptable?

 

Unless and until Polunin has been judged to have acted unlawfully, and as no public money is involved, I don’t think anyone has the right to stop others seeing him - as opposed to convincing them not to.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vanartus said:

...and if his rants had been about race or Jews or women, you’d have still felt the same?

 

I don't see why the reaction should be any different, were the content of the rants roughly equivalent.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So agree with Lizbie and others.  I am not Polunin's biggest fan (!) but I would not wish to see him denied a platform.  It is up to people to decided whether or not they wish to go to see him.  Having said that, one needs to appreciate a promoter's point of view.  I think Sergei is going to find it increasingly difficult to get backers.

 

Having re-read his statement again, it strikes me as ridiculous on so many levels.  He has spent long enough in the West to understand how people tick and it was just wilful to say something so inflammatory.  I come back to this theory I have that all Polunin wants - indeed needs as if it were oxygen - is to be in the news.  His utterings are like those of a malevolent child

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, here, Sim.  Very well said.  Like many others I find Polunin's utterings offensive but they are just that, utterings made for effect.  I choose not to go to see him dance because it is my personal opinion  that he simply isn't up to much anymore, but others who feel differently make different choices.  That is their right just as it is mine to criticise both his dancing and his attitude to life.  I, too, am sick to death of this PC world where the common sense most people are born with is somehow over-ridden by those who feel they have the right to tell us what to feel/think/behave.  My particular bete-noire is the way cyclists in London have been granted sainthood status which leaves them free to hog over-congested roads, ride so dangerously that anyone with walking difficulties takes their life in their hands crossing Bow Street.  I dislike it because it is somehow implied that those of us who don't cycle, whatever our age or state of health, are somehow not worthy of consideration.

 

Everybody must make up their own mind about Polunin but as long as there are promoters willing to risk their money on staging him, people should be free to make their choice.

Edited by penelopesimpson
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, penelopesimpson said:

Great set, great turns but the former elegance and balance missing, replaced by sloppy posture.  Macrae could knock spots of this and Sambe would leave him standing.

Well, to say the truth, wasn't real Rasputin quite far away from being elegant? It's difficult to judge the piece out of the short recording, but I'm still looking forward to the performance in "Palladium" Saturday next week  - though, well, it's also possible I'll be disappointed. So, Sergei and the team, please do your best!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

21 hours ago, Sim said:

We either have free speech or we don’t. It’s not selective.  “I may hate what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. “

 

I will make very clear that I hate any kind of prejudice, but I am all for allowing people to vent their bile, prejudice and hatred in public.  It makes them look ridiculous, but more importantly if they are allowed to say what they think that is a lot less dangerous than consigning them to doing it in other ways, and in secret.  As Lizbie said above, I vote with my feet.  If I disagree with someone's take on things, or think they have been offensive to others, I won't go to see them.  Simple as that.  

 

People should be allowed to have debates and disputes, not just be shut down and repressed.  That's when danger happens. If things are out in the open, they are easier to deal with.

 

Free speech is not as simple as it sounds. Young gay boys have committed suicide because of the homophobic comments made on-line. Is the right to say anything you want more important than young mens' lives? 

Edited by jmb
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jmb said:

 

 

Free speech is not as simple as it sounds. Young gay boys have committed suicide because of the homophobic comments made on-line. Is your right to say anything that comes into your head more important than young mens' lives? 

That's a totally different issue, and very, very sad, but many people, not only gay boys,  have committed suicide from things people have said/done to them.   I don't believe that people should be prevented from saying what they think because some people might commit suicide.  If they are being trolled, personally insulted, harassed or bullied, then that is of course a different matter, and of course it should stopped and dealt with by the authorities.  However, I am talking about people being able to express their opinions, no matter how odious some people might find them.  There is a difference between this and someone being bullied.  Polunin was expressing his warped opinions in a general way.   

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just savouring the irony of people defending absolutist free speech from the appalling modern scourge of Political Correctness (otherwise known as  not being rude and abusive to people weaker than you) on a site where conversation is  tightly controlled to avoid offending the people who are doing the complaining.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a ridiculous statement, Colman.  Conversation on this site is hardly 'tightly controlled', otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate, nor many others that we have had.

 

Furthermore, no-one is advocating being rude and abusive to people weaker than others.  That is a completely different issue from being able to say what you think without people deciding on your behalf what is acceptable and what isn't.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen a site so quick to close conversations, hide comments or chide people for saying the wrong thing when others can say whatever they like. It's your site, do what you like, but let's not pretend that it's some sort of bastion of openness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we don't by and large visit the same sites, then.  One site I'm on frequently used to "vanish" large quantities of posts without even admitting it.  And it's rare for us to lock conversations.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Colman said:

I've never seen a site so quick to close conversations, hide comments or chide people for saying the wrong thing when others can say whatever they like. It's your site, do what you like, but let's not pretend that it's some sort of bastion of openness. 

 

I don't think that is fair. I don't recognise your description of how this site works at all. 

 

It cannot be easy moderating a site like this and overall I think the mods. here do a great job, balancing freedom of expression  and opinion with occasionally stepping in  when discussions  descend into  endless repetition, point-scoring, or abuse/trolling (albeit the latter appears pretty rare on here ). Or just pointing people  back to the actual subject matter of a discussion when it has gone  off-piste. Usually all this is done  sensitively and by posting an appropriate observation, or by sending people a private message, rather than closing down a conversation.   

 

A civilised discussion among many people with diverse views benefits from someone acting, in effect, as a chair-person. Sim and the others do a great job as far as I am concerned and they should continue to receive our thanks and support.  

 

 

Edited by Richard LH
  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Richard.   Hmmmm, 'so quick to shut things down'?   We often get told by forum members that we let controversial threads run for way too long.  Why do we do this?  Because we believe that people should have their say to the greatest extent possible, and as Alison says we really dislike  having to lock or hide threads or posts, and as you say  Richard we only do that when it has really gone too far.  We could easily clamp down a lot more than we do, but that isn't how we want to run the forum.

 

Seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.  

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to Sergei (my apologies for largely being the reason we have veered away from topic)... I hope that FionaE and anyone else who goes to the Palladium shows will report back.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather they did not.  It is one thing to believe that an artist should not be censored for expressing his homophobic and sexist views (a distributor deciding not to sell tickets is not censorship by the way - it's the expression of a moral position, however commercially driven that decision might be) but encouraging discussion of that artist's work as one would any other performance is to normalise those views as if they were acceptable in a civilised society.   

 

Polunin is free to hire space for his projects but no one is obliged to go and see him perform and I reserve the right to think less of those who do.  Doesn't matter how brilliant they consider his dancing to be.  To support him is to support his repugnant views.  Very disappointed by Kobborg's continued collaboration.  

 

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sim said:

Getting back to Sergei (my apologies for largely being the reason we have veered away from topic)... I hope that FionaE and anyone else who goes to the Palladium shows will report back.  

 

Yes I agree, there does seem to be an attempt here to silence people into not feeling they can discuss the actual Sergei Polunin Palladium shows which is completely different to discussing his Twitter rants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Colman said:

I've never seen a site so quick to close conversations, hide comments or chide people for saying the wrong thing when others can say whatever they like. It's your site, do what you like, but let's not pretend that it's some sort of bastion of openness. 

 

You’re more than welcome to take over the running of this site and put your house, job and whole life on the line just because some people don’t understand the defamation laws.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...