babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Judith Thompson play minion for Dove corporation?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Judith Thompson play minion for Dove corporation?
Gab
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14992

posted 08 May 2008 12:08 PM      Profile for Gab     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Judith Thompson is determined to drive a reimagination of the beauty of aging women and she couldn't be less concerned about selling a few bars of soap in the process.
The renowned homegrown playwright will premiere an adventurous new play in Toronto entitled Body & Soul at the Distillery District's Young Centre for the Performing Arts on Saturday, which has sparked a measure of unease in the theatre community.

quote:

This is an issue I found myself reading and discussing today and I'm curious what others think. Playwright Judith Thompson's Dove sponsered play begins it's run this week for their "Real Beauty Campaign". Many feel that Thompson should not have accepted the offer to write the play as it is simply a marketing gimmick under the facade of theatre.
He said he expects Thompson has created a good theatre piece and will reserve judgment until he has seen the play and the "presence" Dove's brand has at the theatre - but he thinks it a forbidding omen for the future. "I am very nervous about this. I'm not sure this is the production that actually crosses the line, but I think that it's not far off. I think this sort of invasion of the theatre could happen very quickly if we don't pay attention," he said.

quote:


While I greatly understand Thompson's decision to accept the offer (as she recieved funding/support and an interesting idea to write a play using real woman and stories), I do find it disturbing when you consider that theatre is virtually one of the only mediums left that hasn't been tainted by product placements and such.
here is the article that best explains the issue:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080508.wdove08/BNStory/Entertainment/home

From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gab
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14992

posted 08 May 2008 12:12 PM      Profile for Gab     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OOPS...this quote by Rick Miller should be what's in quotations,not what I later say about understanding both sides of the issue. A little new at this!
It should read like this:
He said he expects Thompson has created a good theatre piece and will reserve judgment until he has seen the play and the "presence" Dove's brand has at the theatre - but he thinks it a forbidding omen for the future. "I am very nervous about this. I'm not sure this is the production that actually crosses the line, but I think that it's not far off. I think this sort of invasion of the theatre could happen very quickly if we don't pay attention," he said.
quote:


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gab
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14992

posted 08 May 2008 12:13 PM      Profile for Gab     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
still didn't get it right, but you get the idea...
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 09 May 2008 08:11 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey Gab, thanks for this story. I'm very concerned with this latest step in the commodification of art, specifically theatre. How can Thompson say her art won't be affected (actually, she says she won't 'pander', but I'd like to hold a higher standard than that) when the content of her play is identical to an ad campaign? It's one thing to "simply" affix a company name to a production (Dove presents Body and Soul, etc) and wholly another to dictate theme and content.

P.S. If you want to quote something, start the quote with (quote) and finish it with (/quote), replacing the () with square brackets []. So [quoth]Gab[/quoth] would look like this:

quote:
Gab

From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 09 May 2008 09:27 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, and here's a collection of links at shameless that discusses how problematic Dove's "Campaign for Real Beauty" really is.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gab
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14992

posted 09 May 2008 04:45 PM      Profile for Gab     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
hey Catchfire, thanks for responding!
That is a good point that the content of the play is completely structured around the ad campaign. After reading the link you posted from Shameless about how they re-touch their own images, Thompson working with the company seems even more disturbing. It just seems sad that an important piece of theatre needs to be linked to a company that is ultimately just after profit but just has a slightly sneaker marketing strategy that makes consumers think they have a concious. As Rick Miller says in the article, I feel I can only make full judgment once I see the play though to see how much Dove's products are or are not hawked.

From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668

posted 09 May 2008 04:56 PM      Profile for laine lowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's definitely something queasy about such a relationship between theatre and commerce. All of a sudden the play becomes associated with the product. How is that not marketing? It's like beauty columns that promote specific brands being considered journalism. I don't think so.

This is a very dangerous precedent in my view. It undermines the integrity of artistic expression. The content of the play being tied to the content of the marketing campaign goes far beyond the traditional concept of corporate sponsorship of an event.


From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Digiteyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8323

posted 09 May 2008 05:34 PM      Profile for Digiteyes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was one of the test subjects for the website when Dove was looking for actors.

Women were asked to write in. To write a letter to their body.. From the letters that were collected (Dove had some suggestions about getting women-only parties together to discuss how women felt about their bodies), Judith Thompson was going to pull the material for the play. Also from the submissions, non-professional actors were going to be selected to act in the production. They were looking for a total of a dozen women to participate with Judith Thompson in the guided improv/letter based process of creating the play.

The only thing Dove had to do with it, as far as I could see, was that they came up with the idea, provided the website, and were paying Judith Thompson.

There was nothing on the website about women needing to be using the products, or needing to describe the products, or anything about the product appearing in the show.

The materials that had been supplied by women across Canada, once the site was up and running, were really quite touching. And not at all an advertisement for Dove. They were about women and their views of their own bodies and their own bodies histories.

I'm willing to go to see this before I'm going to slam it as blatant commercialism.

Frankly, I'm hard pressed to see this show as being as commercial as... oh gosh... Joseph and the amazing technicolor dreamcoat? Crazy for you? Phantom of the opera? Miss Saigon? Pandering happens commercially -- it's about putting warm bums in the seats so the backers can earn their money back (they hope: maybe even make some money).

From what I've seen and read about this, it's not going to be a soap opera (daytime serials that were sponsored by soap companies, and frequently included product placement. On radio. Back in the '50's).

Let's give it a chance before accepting a speculative newspaper article as truth.

[ 09 May 2008: Message edited by: Digiteyes ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 10 May 2008 01:36 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Digiteyes, everything you have said reinforces the idea that this play is blatant commercialism: Dove provided the theme and content of the play and the impetus to create it.

And I do see productions like The Phantom of the Opera as blatant commercialism, and I do not consider them theatre. Judith Thompson is a wonderful playwright with artistic integrity and credibility, but she is producing a commercial, framed as art. At least Andrew Lloyd Webber was allowed to write his own musical before a corporation decided to sponsor it. Theatre is not about "putting bums in seats." Such a mentality already commercializes art.

I realize that not everyone has a problem with this (according to the article I'm a theatre "purist"). But as someone who takes art's role in society very seriously, I question this kind of corporate invasion into artistic output--especially when it undermines the already fragile funding structure of Canada Arts Council grants and the like.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 May 2008 04:21 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it doesn't matter whether soap gets hawked in the play - the fact is, everyone will know that Dove is the sponsor, and the play itself will basically be an extended version of the commercial, except without saying "buy our soap".

Maybe next, they could get her to write a play on how fair skin is lovely and dark skin is ugly. It could include such scenes as a brown-skinned woman getting mocked and refused service at a beauty counter because she's not white enough. Then she can go back to her home and get rejected/overlooked by some guy because her skin is too dark.

Then through some sort of magic potion, her skin lightens, and then the man falls in love with her, the woman at the beauty counter is stunned into speechlessness, and the gorgeous woman with Fair And Lovely skin can live happily ever after.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 10 May 2008 04:31 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Other art forms have been doing product placement for quite some time. James Bond, for example, had his peculiarly English tastes and, was know for the brand of his gadgets as much as the gadgets themselves. Here's my comments about Iron Man, which I saw on the big screen this past week.

What I mainly want to dwell on is product placement. Besides being a general advertisement for the US military, F-16's, F-22's, the US Air Force, and, of course, the fictional Stark Industries (presumably modeled on Hughes Industries since the main character was partly modeled on Howard Hughes), the film boasts a lengthy series of free advertising. It includes automobiles: Rolls-Royce, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Audi, Porsche, Corvette (that gets destroyed by the roof-crashing aerial Robocop), Dodge Trucks, MG and Jaguar; motorcycles: a parked Harley Davidson and probably a Triumph and/or BSA as well; Dell Computers; Bluthner Pianos; Rocco's Pizza in Malibu; and Texaco petroleum. I'm sure there are plenty that I missed as it was difficult to keep up with the dizzying array of images and follow the film at the same time.

One important American product missing was an official cheeseburger. However, the main character, once he has his epiphany and change of heart from a lifetime of fabulous wealth from the development and sale of weapons of death, curiously cannot do without munching on a cheeseburger while delivering his change of heart speech to a flabbergasted crowd of military personnel, arms dealers and press representatives. It was as if the film makers teased some unnamed McCorporation with the idea that, yes, your cheeseburger could have been right here in the film.This seems like a new form of product placement to me. It's an advertisement for an advertisement, like those ads on park benches saying "Your ad could have been here". Maybe next time for the McCorporation?

If the press from Marvel is to be believed, a sequel is already in the works, and there is always room for an official cheeseburger in a future Iron Man film. Maybe we can look forward to an official soft drink, or, in this case, an official oil for the difficult lube jobs that Iron Man will need. The red and green of Texaco might be a good fit for the red and gold of Iron Man, eh? This is where the film's main character resembles James Bond (with his peculiarly English product tastes) who has all the right brands and all the right products: the Walther PPK, the Aston Martin, etc..

Anyway, all in all, it was an unrelenting series of commercials. And that sort of made sense in a film in which the main character becomes the product, an all-purpose human weapon as it were, for sale to the hapless idiots who watch this shit.

Fortunately for me, some other idiot payed for my ticket....

Many, even most, aspects of social life give us an opportunity to contrast capitalist culture with a post-capitalist alternative. My remedy is: to be involved in the creation of artistic values myself, as an amateur artist; to be a discerning consumer and try to make intelligent choices about what arts to support, and support alternatives; and to try to integrate my own artistic values into my own life, even my political life, as best I can.

Edited to add:

Marketing and advertising is a multi-trillion dollar industry, the effects of which have seeped into so many aspects of social life under late capitalism, prolonging the existence of the system by promoting endless consumption, with one credit bubble after another, in what has been called by some "the sales effort". It is ubiquitous.

[ 10 May 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 10 May 2008 05:17 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Product placement really began in American hardboiled pulp literature in magazines like Black Mask (although there are some antecedents in 19th-century dime novels). Think about the novels of Chandler and Hammett. Although those dudes were the masters of the genre, high literature really, Phillip Marlowe wore a Stetson, never a boater. The commodity culture permeates those works.

But this is not product placement, nor is it "simply" sponsorship. It is a corporation telling an established, respected artist what to put in her plays: and this content is identical to a questionable ad campaign. Again, this is not simply hiring an artist to write an ad for them: it is hiring an artist to write the ad and then passing it off as independent art. This is a problem.

This tactic with Thompson is a new step, a new extension of corporate culture in places that should rebuke it as a matter of course. If you think that commodification is already ubiquitous, hold on to your Stetson because you ain't seen nothing yet.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 10 May 2008 05:51 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When Jurassic Park came out, I remember seeing the film's own products for sale in the film itself. You usually expect to see such things appear after the film, especially if it is successful. However, in that case, children's toys for sale after the film appeared in the film as children's toys for sale in the ticket and information centre in the film. The movie was, in part, a commercial for the products available afterwards.

The movie is a commercial and a commercial becomes a movie. You have the interminable series of advertisements before the film begins, of course, but perhaps this is the future of commercials. Dissatisfied with consumers who mute the sound of commercials, or block them out entirely, advertisers will take to embedding the commercials in the program, like Johnny Carson promoting some product on his talk show, or make the entire show, in effect, a commercial for the products to be sold afterwards.

ETA: From movies as a particular art form in which content and meaning is essential ... we get movies in which content and meaning is irrelevant.

[ 10 May 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595

posted 10 May 2008 06:11 AM      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It'll be interesting to see how time treats these "Classic" directors, or pimps, such as Speilberg.

Imagine watching a Hitchcock classic and having Jimmy Stewart hold a pack of Lucky Strikes up to the camera for an extended time...


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Digiteyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8323

posted 10 May 2008 07:52 AM      Profile for Digiteyes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:

But this is not product placement, nor is it "simply" sponsorship. It is a corporation telling an established, respected artist what to put in her plays: and this content is identical to a questionable ad campaign. Again, this is not simply hiring an artist to write an ad for them: it is hiring an artist to write the ad and then passing it off as independent art. This is a problem.

I want to disagree with you on this, Catchfire. Dove is not providing the content -- women who write in are providing the base material, and Judith Thompson is taking that and workshopping it with 12 women who will be performing it. It's collaborative theatre, similar to The Farmers' Revolt by Rick Salutin, except it's using electronically submitted stories, rather than the actors going out and researching and then bringing the stories back to Rick for them all to incorporate into a play.

Yes, Dove is clearly sponsoring it. We'd have to ask Judith if it's a Work for Hire, or if she has complete control and freedom.

Aside: subsequent info that's been published says that there was no retouching other than dust & scratch removal and color correction done in the Real Beauty campaign.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 10 May 2008 08:05 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Frankly, I think it is a wonderful conception by Dove and a terrific action by Thompson. I can't wait to see the reviews tomorrow.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 May 2008 08:10 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
The movie is a commercial and a commercial becomes a movie. You have the interminable series of advertisements before the film begins, of course, but perhaps this is the future of commercials. Dissatisfied with consumers who mute the sound of commercials, or block them out entirely, advertisers will take to embedding the commercials in the program, like Johnny Carson promoting some product on his talk show, or make the entire show, in effect, a commercial for the products to be sold afterwards.

They've been doing this for years on Saturday morning cartoons for children. Remember Beyblades? The cartoon television show was about children playing WITH the actual toy that was out on the market. The Beyblades weren't animated characters themselves on the TV show. They were the toys that the main characters were playing with (and that you can buy and play with too!).

Same with the card games. Yu-Gi-Oh cards are sold in stores and kids play Yu-Gi-Oh. In the kids' television show, it's kids playing Yu-Gi-Oh with the Yu-Gi-Oh cards as well. They don't even make a pretence of making the characters you find on the Yu-Gi-Oh cards into the real characters on the show.

At least on Pokemon, the Pokemon card characters are real characters on the show. But they are still used like "fighting pets" by the main characters (humans) on the show, who "battle" using their Pokemon pets as weapons, the same way real kids "battle" using their Pokemon cards as the weapons.

[ 10 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 May 2008 08:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Digiteyes:
It's collaborative theatre, similar to The Farmers' Revolt by Rick Salutin, except it's using electronically submitted stories, rather than the actors going out and researching and then bringing the stories back to Rick for them all to incorporate into a play.

Well, that, and Rick didn't have the theme of his play dictated by a corporation that just so happens to be using exactly the same theme for a marketing campaign to sell beauty products.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 10 May 2008 08:25 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, you've reminded me that there have been some excellent articles and research suggesting that advertising to children should be heavily restricted or simply banned altogether. We had some discussion of that here on babble; it may have related to advertising in schools or something like that.

The basic idea is that children have not yet developed the mental equipment to evaluate claims and see through the psychological manipulation that advertisers carry out in order to promote and sell their wares and that, therefore, kids should be protected, just as they are somewhat protected from exposure to other kinds of harm by rating systems, parental controls, etc.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 10 May 2008 08:38 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Michelle, you've reminded me that there have been some excellent articles and research suggesting that advertising to children should be heavily restricted or simply banned altogether. We had some discussion of that here on babble; it may have related to advertising in schools or something like that.

You may be thinking of this thread last month, about the ONDP proposing to ban TV ads for food or drink to kids under 13. I kind of suggested they should screw up their courage (or go borrow some) and propose banning all advertising whatsoever argetting children, as Québec did almost 30 years ago...


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Digiteyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8323

posted 10 May 2008 09:39 AM      Profile for Digiteyes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Well, that, and Rick didn't have the theme of his play dictated by a corporation that just so happens to be using exactly the same theme for a marketing campaign to sell beauty products.


But he probably had some significant provincial or federal fundinh in 1972... and the show dealt with political goings-on. Does that mean the show was propaganda/marketing? I don't think so.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gab
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14992

posted 10 May 2008 02:13 PM      Profile for Gab     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Frankly, I think it is a wonderful conception by Dove and a terrific action by Thompson. I can't wait to see the reviews tomorrow.

I to am very curious about the reviews tomorrow. I actually tried to get tickets but it's pretty much sold out.
The issue does bring to light the lackof funding going to the arts which makes an offer like this so appealing to Thompson.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 May 2008 02:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Digiteyes:
But he probably had some significant provincial or federal fundinh in 1972... and the show dealt with political goings-on. Does that mean the show was propaganda/marketing? I don't think so.

And did the provincial or federal government dictate the theme and plot of the play to him? Was the play an extended version of an "Ontario - Yours To Discover" or "Good Things Grow In Ontario" commercial?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Digiteyes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8323

posted 10 May 2008 02:58 PM      Profile for Digiteyes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

And did the provincial or federal government dictate the theme and plot of the play to him? Was the play an extended version of an "Ontario - Yours To Discover" or "Good Things Grow In Ontario" commercial?


No, governments are far more careful than that. To apply for a grant, you usually have to say when the play will go on, who will be in it, and what the play is about. Then it is either approved for a grant or dismissed.

But the government does put out calls for historical dramas and recreations to be done (for example, on the steps of the Ontario Legislature) where the directors/writers/actors must demonstrate how they will meet the government's criteria. Before they get chosen to create the piece. That happens all the time.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668

posted 10 May 2008 03:25 PM      Profile for laine lowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Digiteyes:

No, governments are far more careful than that. To apply for a grant, you usually have to say when the play will go on, who will be in it, and what the play is about. Then it is either approved for a grant or dismissed.

But the government does put out calls for historical dramas and recreations to be done (for example, on the steps of the Ontario Legislature) where the directors/writers/actors must demonstrate how they will meet the government's criteria. Before they get chosen to create the piece. That happens all the time.


The reason the Canada Council and other arts councils are set up as arms length funding organizations is to remove political decision-making from the equation. These councils also operate on a peer review system, so it's other artists judging the merit of your project based on artistic principles, not political or commercial ones.

As for historical recreations, those are commissioned directly by the government as an added attraction at historical sites they operate. I wouldn't categorize that as works of art.


From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 13 May 2008 01:53 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Review in NOW Magazine

On the Wings of Dove

quote:
Cooptation or triumph? That's what people want to know every time a major corporation steps in and does something explicitly feminist and that's what everyone was asking me last Saturday night at the opening of the Body & Soul show at the Young Centre for the Performing Arts.

Answer: triumph, definitely.

[...]

The soulful show mines stories of struggle and empowerment in moving ways. There was not a single mention of the name Dove throughout the evening, even during the introduction and, it seems, no attempt to manipulate the content to reflect any predisposition to beauty products.

Whenever I'm asked about beauty companies coopting feminist ideas for advertising purposes I always say that I celebrate the phenomenon. Advertisements advertise two things – the product itself and some kind of underlying value, whether it's the nuclear family, a standard of beauty, consumerism in general, sex and violence or anything else.

Given that, any time a spot advertises a feminist value alongside its product I'm not going to complain.

In this case, a company selling beauty products didn't even sell anything during the show. True, each audience member received a swag bag containing three beauty products, all of them imbued with enough perfume to make me gag. And the soap bar was pink, for heaven's sake.

So, yes, Dove wants us all to be girly girls. But taken together with the response of the opening night audience to the powerful stories of diverse women, Dove's doing the right thing.



From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 13 May 2008 06:01 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm planning to see the play tomorrow. I'll let everyone know my thoughts on it. Full disclosure: a friend of mine is one of the women in the play, but I don't know anything more about the content than what's been posted here and online.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 15 May 2008 04:37 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
I'm planning to see the play tomorrow. I'll let everyone know my thoughts on it. Full disclosure: a friend of mine is one of the women in the play, but I don't know anything more about the content than what's been posted here and online.

So how was it?

From the reviews above, it seems it was a very good production, and I say it is about time feminist perspectives receive some funding.

Go Judith!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 22 May 2008 03:40 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Strong stories, yes - but hold the soap
quote:
In fact, there are far too many stories to tell comprehensively in just 2½ hours. Thompson has made an attempt to sculpt the women's lives into a cohesive whole, arranging the show by theme, so, for instance, they talk in turn of memories of their mothers, their first sexual experiences, things they like and dislike about aging, things that make them angry. All 13 are on stage for the entire running time - even former nun Jeannine Boucher, 78, the oldest of the bunch, who held onto her script through much of the show like a safety blanket and bowled the audience over with her genuineness.

There is no star rating because the acting is amateur, which is meant as a description, not an insult. (Though Barbara Nichol, 54, should hit the comedy-club circuit.) When the women are simply speaking about themselves in sequence, it's all very charming, often even poignant. It's when they attempt something a little more scripted in the second act ("Speaking of orgasms, Barbara") that it begins to feel embarrassingly artificial.

[...]

Dove Pro-Age gets no mention in the text. Indeed, one of Body & Soul's "real" women even voices her anger at the idea that women need to have smooth skin at all; she's rough and proud of it.

Of course, that was undercut by the fact that, under every seat, there were gift bags containing moisturizer, body lotion and "beauty bars." The discovery of these, by the women who packed the sold-out matinee I saw, garnered Body & Soul's first round of applause - and a more heartfelt one than I have heard at many a night of theatre.



From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 22 May 2008 04:10 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry I was neglectful in getting back to this thread. I didn't get in, every show was sold out by Tuesday, including the extra Wednesday night show.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca