Let me start by saying that I am not, by any means, an established literary or play critic; nor have I ever purported to be one.
Having said that, though, I should like to draw your attention to a recent play by Anders Luntgarten, If You Don't Let Us Dream, We Won't Let You Sleep.
Unfortunately, I have not had the pleasure of seeing the play yet which is precisely why I shall refrain from opting to provide any commentary or reviews on its contents or protagonists.
What I would, however, like to look into is the idea behind the play; the driving force of its plot, if you will.
The play was sparked by the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ initiative (for want of a better term) which, I’m sure, everyone remembers as a ‘failed attempt for a revolutionary cout d’état of the capitalistic regime’ (as it was dubbed by the mass media at the time).
The plot of the play revolves around the introduction of ‘Unity Bonds’ which yield profits to investors when the number of re- offenders and people in need of treatment drops to a certain level, thereby shifting the cost of social repair.
Such a policy leads to innocent people being imprisoned and others refused treatment so that the ‘targets’ can be met and profits realised.
As noted above; I shan’t comment on the actual play as I haven’t seen it.
What prompted me to write this entry was the way in which the play was perceived by various mediums which I shall discuss in turn.
The Independent
Leaning to the left, the Independent criticises the play for not exposing the matter to ‘sufficiently rigorous scrutiny’.
One cannot help but wonder then whether the media, or politicians, for that matter, expect artists to up with a universal solution to the economic crisis.
Metro
Being a right- wing paper, Metro dubs the play as ‘second- hand satire’ which ‘takes aim at over- familiar targets: Libor rate fixing, tax- dodging corporations’, etc.
After all, let us not forget that Mr Boris Johnson was the first to attack the EU regulation which is set to cap bankers’ bonuses, calling it ‘moronic’.
As for the over- familiar targets; well, those will, it’d seem, be everyone’s aim until they’re obliterated from the face of the Earth.
British Theatre Guide
No affiliations. No acerbic remarks. An artist praised for his effort to make a change.
In the light of the above, then, is it normal to perceive an artist’s work as a political phenomenon?
Is it acceptable to expect artists to initiate debates which politicians shy away from?
Is it reasonable to refer to issues which have scandalised and rattled the world’s population since 2008 as trivial and ‘over- familiar’?
Probably not.
No comments:
Post a Comment