Home › London Breaks

I posted to friendfeed.com

Can Scandinavian crime fiction teach socialism?

http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/02/24/can-scandinavian-crime-fiction-teach-socialism

London talk

Can Scandinavian crime fiction teach socialism? - http://distributedresearch.net/blog...

2 hours ago

from Andy Roberts DARnet

Comment
Like

February 24 2011, 4:41am | Comments »

I posted to distributedresearch.net

Can Scandinavian crime fiction teach socialism?

http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/02/24/can-scandinavian-crime-fiction-teach-socialism

I don’t know if it teaches anything at all, but DI Lund and co do make compulsive viewing over 20 episodes shown in ten weeks on BBC 4. Great stuff.

This article titled “Can Scandinavian crime fiction teach socialism?” was written by Deborah Orr, for The Guardian on Thursday 24th February 2011 09.00 UTC Who killed Nanna Birk Larsen? The question grips the relatively small, but avid, band of people who are following The Killing, a Danish crime series being screened on BBC4. The Killing throws up plenty of other questions, too. One even feels a strange tug of interest in Copenhagen’s local political scene because the abduction, rape, torture and murder of a 19-year-old student seems inextricably linked to a number of people fighting a city election. Alliances between various political parties ebb and flow, as the turns of the plot hurl suspicion at different candidates. One of the many things The Killing asks is this: are political coalitions really healthy? It is no doubt coincidence that the query is so particularly pertinent in Britain right now. But there is a definite reason why a slice of Scandinavian crime fiction should be actively concerned with framing socio-political debate. It is part of what is expected of the genre in this part of the world, and has been since Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö started publishing what came to be known as the Martin Beck series, in 1965. The couple, former journalists, conceived 10 crime novels that would provide a deliberate critique of what they viewed as the degeneration of Sweden. Marxists themselves, they intended to use the crime genre to illustrate the advantages of socialistic approaches to social problems. That sounds unbearably didactic and worthy. But the tremendous thing is that the books work first and foremost as crime fiction. In fact, they are reckoned by the cognoscenti to be among the finest and most influential crime novels ever written. Essentially, the pair challenged the convention of the lone genius private detective, replacing him with a group of police officers, led by the low-key Beck, who depended on each other to solve cases – and also, as a matter of course, put up with, or worked round, colleagues who were not so gifted. Maverick individualism was out, patient and humane people management was in. Thus, the ever-shifting group ploughed through many and varied crime scenes – crime scenes that usually in some way or other questioned the permissive values espoused by the liberal left so successfully at that time. It seems to me that in the pages of these Swedish police procedurals, all those years ago, Sjöwall and Wahlöö were examining contradictions that the British left even now refuses properly to acknowledge. The socialist left and the liberal left have little in common, with Blairism a shining example of how difficult it is to “triangulate” them. Hard work and compromise is needed before social freedom and state welfare can be shackled together. Even then, perhaps, the resulting beast is an impossible chimera. Is it too much to speculate that the current huge vogue for Scandinavian crime fiction is somehow a tacit acknowledgement of the need to have this debate, and the fear of what conclusions it might draw? Henning Mankell, in his Wallander series, now televised in two versions in Britain, makes no bones about the fact that he is continuing in the Martin Beck tradition. Stieg Larsson, who meant his phenomenally successful Millennium trilogy to be a 10-part work when he first started writing it, has succeeded in igniting exactly the sort of debate, among feminists anyway, that Sjöwall and Wahlöö expected. Norwegian crime writer Jo Nesbo, with 5m sales worldwide and film deals in the works, similarly uses sexual crime as an expression of the extremes of discord among men and women. This “metaphor” is somewhat unanswerable, on the face of it. But the details are quite controversial. The women who are killed in his novel The Snowman, for example, stand accused of denying men their paternal roles, and messing up their children in the process. Discuss that thesis in sexually and politically mixed company, and passions can run high quite fast. Nesbo is not a reactionary, despite the “traditional family values” cast that can be placed on his bestselling novel’s storyline. Like his peers and predecessors, he deals with problems inherent in social democracy, problems that are not that usefully divided between “left” and “right”. It is often said now that the two opposing terms have become “meaningless”, since both left and right contain a range of values from libertarian to authoritarian. In truth, the political tension is between freedom and regulation, often between whether the social realm should be regulated in order to benefit the economic realm, or the other way round. Social democracy, if it is about anything, surely, is about constantly striving to get that tricky balance right. The British are used to believing that the Scandinavians, especially the Swedes, have social democracy cracked, while Britain is far from being a socially democratic country. The truth, however, is much more nuanced. Britain shares many of the values and difficulties of the Scandinavian states, and of other European states that Britain tends to view as being much more socially democratic than we are. That was emphasised in a depressing report yesterday from risk analyst Maplecroft, which ranked Britain the 10th most likely country of 163 to undergo another economic crisis. Sweden is fourth, and Japan is the only non-European country to make it into the top 10, at nine. The shared challenges are “ageing populations, substantial levels of debt and high public spending on health and pensions”. Each of these, of course, is already high on the national agenda, the subject of raucous, sometimes hysterical debate. The logical solution – if there is a solution at all – is for everyone to live very healthy and disciplined lives, expecting to look after more vulnerable members of the family whenever necessary, and seeking only specialist or temporary help from a well-ordered state as a last resort. It is a vision that unites authoritarian left and right, but scares the bejesus out of free-marketeers and social liberals. All of these groups, however, can probably find something compelling in a chunk of Scandinavian crime fiction, which possibly owes its great popularity to its ability to offer sensationalist escape, but of a kind that is grounded all too recognisably in the real world.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogCan Scandinavian crime fiction teach socialism?

Related posts:Designing for Civil Society Every 10 minutes commute means 10% fewer social links Issues Forums and epanels workshop

February 24 2011, 4:41am | Comments »

I posted to distributedresearch.net

Can Scandinavian crime fiction teach socialism?

http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/02/24/can-scandinavian-crime-fiction-teach-socialism

I don’t know if it teaches anything at all, but DI Lund and co do make compulsive viewing over 20 episodes shown in ten weeks on BBC 4. Great stuff.

This article titled “Can Scandinavian crime fiction teach socialism?” was written by Deborah Orr, for The Guardian on Thursday 24th February 2011 09.00 UTC Who killed Nanna Birk Larsen? The question grips the relatively small, but avid, band of people who are following The Killing, a Danish crime series being screened on BBC4. The Killing throws up plenty of other questions, too. One even feels a strange tug of interest in Copenhagen’s local political scene because the abduction, rape, torture and murder of a 19-year-old student seems inextricably linked to a number of people fighting a city election. Alliances between various political parties ebb and flow, as the turns of the plot hurl suspicion at different candidates. One of the many things The Killing asks is this: are political coalitions really healthy? It is no doubt coincidence that the query is so particularly pertinent in Britain right now. But there is a definite reason why a slice of Scandinavian crime fiction should be actively concerned with framing socio-political debate. It is part of what is expected of the genre in this part of the world, and has been since Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö started publishing what came to be known as the Martin Beck series, in 1965. The couple, former journalists, conceived 10 crime novels that would provide a deliberate critique of what they viewed as the degeneration of Sweden. Marxists themselves, they intended to use the crime genre to illustrate the advantages of socialistic approaches to social problems. That sounds unbearably didactic and worthy. But the tremendous thing is that the books work first and foremost as crime fiction. In fact, they are reckoned by the cognoscenti to be among the finest and most influential crime novels ever written. Essentially, the pair challenged the convention of the lone genius private detective, replacing him with a group of police officers, led by the low-key Beck, who depended on each other to solve cases – and also, as a matter of course, put up with, or worked round, colleagues who were not so gifted. Maverick individualism was out, patient and humane people management was in. Thus, the ever-shifting group ploughed through many and varied crime scenes – crime scenes that usually in some way or other questioned the permissive values espoused by the liberal left so successfully at that time. It seems to me that in the pages of these Swedish police procedurals, all those years ago, Sjöwall and Wahlöö were examining contradictions that the British left even now refuses properly to acknowledge. The socialist left and the liberal left have little in common, with Blairism a shining example of how difficult it is to “triangulate” them. Hard work and compromise is needed before social freedom and state welfare can be shackled together. Even then, perhaps, the resulting beast is an impossible chimera. Is it too much to speculate that the current huge vogue for Scandinavian crime fiction is somehow a tacit acknowledgement of the need to have this debate, and the fear of what conclusions it might draw? Henning Mankell, in his Wallander series, now televised in two versions in Britain, makes no bones about the fact that he is continuing in the Martin Beck tradition. Stieg Larsson, who meant his phenomenally successful Millennium trilogy to be a 10-part work when he first started writing it, has succeeded in igniting exactly the sort of debate, among feminists anyway, that Sjöwall and Wahlöö expected. Norwegian crime writer Jo Nesbo, with 5m sales worldwide and film deals in the works, similarly uses sexual crime as an expression of the extremes of discord among men and women. This “metaphor” is somewhat unanswerable, on the face of it. But the details are quite controversial. The women who are killed in his novel The Snowman, for example, stand accused of denying men their paternal roles, and messing up their children in the process. Discuss that thesis in sexually and politically mixed company, and passions can run high quite fast. Nesbo is not a reactionary, despite the “traditional family values” cast that can be placed on his bestselling novel’s storyline. Like his peers and predecessors, he deals with problems inherent in social democracy, problems that are not that usefully divided between “left” and “right”. It is often said now that the two opposing terms have become “meaningless”, since both left and right contain a range of values from libertarian to authoritarian. In truth, the political tension is between freedom and regulation, often between whether the social realm should be regulated in order to benefit the economic realm, or the other way round. Social democracy, if it is about anything, surely, is about constantly striving to get that tricky balance right. The British are used to believing that the Scandinavians, especially the Swedes, have social democracy cracked, while Britain is far from being a socially democratic country. The truth, however, is much more nuanced. Britain shares many of the values and difficulties of the Scandinavian states, and of other European states that Britain tends to view as being much more socially democratic than we are. That was emphasised in a depressing report yesterday from risk analyst Maplecroft, which ranked Britain the 10th most likely country of 163 to undergo another economic crisis. Sweden is fourth, and Japan is the only non-European country to make it into the top 10, at nine. The shared challenges are “ageing populations, substantial levels of debt and high public spending on health and pensions”. Each of these, of course, is already high on the national agenda, the subject of raucous, sometimes hysterical debate. The logical solution – if there is a solution at all – is for everyone to live very healthy and disciplined lives, expecting to look after more vulnerable members of the family whenever necessary, and seeking only specialist or temporary help from a well-ordered state as a last resort. It is a vision that unites authoritarian left and right, but scares the bejesus out of free-marketeers and social liberals. All of these groups, however, can probably find something compelling in a chunk of Scandinavian crime fiction, which possibly owes its great popularity to its ability to offer sensationalist escape, but of a kind that is grounded all too recognisably in the real world.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogCan Scandinavian crime fiction teach socialism?

Related posts:Designing for Civil Society Every 10 minutes commute means 10% fewer social links Issues Forums and epanels workshop

February 24 2011, 4:41am | Comments »

I posted to friendfeed.com

It is good manners, not political correctness, to reject the word ‘kaffir’

http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/02/23/manners-political-correctness-kaffir-lime-leaves

London talk

It is good manners, not political correctness, to reject the word ‘kaffir’ - http://distributedresearch.net/blog...

22 hours ago

from Andy Roberts DARnet

Comment
Like

February 23 2011, 9:16am | Comments »

I posted to distributedresearch.net

It is good manners, not political correctness, to reject the word ‘kaffir’

http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/02/23/manners-political-correctness-kaffir-lime-leaves

Never mind all that, I just want to know why I can’t buy kaffir lime leaves any more for my Thai curries.

This article titled “It is good manners, not political correctness, to reject the word ‘kaffir’” was written by Nesrine Malik, for guardian.co.uk on Wednesday 23rd February 2011 14.19 UTC For last week’s instalment of Channel 4′s Dispatches, Lessons in Hate and Violence, teachers and preachers at certain Muslim faith schools in the UK were filmed using the word “kaffir” frequently in reference to non-Muslims. In one interview, a young woman who had previously attended such a school expressed dejection at the fact that her teacher rebuked her for consorting with a “kaffira” – a young, white schoolfriend – when he spotted them outside the school. Kaffir, an Arabic word meaning “disbeliever” or “rejecter”, is an active participle entailing action as opposed to a descriptive noun. In a religious sense it suggests volition, more so than the passive “atheist” or “non-believer”. The root of the word means “to cover” or conceal which adds another dimension of intent to the term; a rejecter of faith who has hidden or concealed the truth. In the Qur’an, Christians and Jews are referred to as “the faithful” – the term “kuffar” (an alternative spelling of “kaffir”) is reserved for those who deny God’s existence but it has sloppily become common vernacular for all non-Muslims. It is one of those words that can be used in jest, hyperbolically mimicking zealous clerics eager to brand as many Muslims and non-Muslims as “kuffir” (as in, “I can see a strand of hair under your hijab, you kaffir”). Due to its frequent use in the Qur’an as a term referring to those who do not believe in God, it can also be taken to mean, in its most non-pejorative sense, purely, “one without faith”. One of the Muslim religious leaders interviewed by Dispatches asserted that the word was offensive, and “othered” non-Muslims, thus standing in the way of integration. The problem with the term is that it originates in a religious and cultural discourse and thus it does not sound too dramatic to audiences in such contexts. In a secular framework it jars, possibly the same way using the word “heretic” or “infidel” in reference to non-Christians or those who have rejected Christian belief would do. In addition, the word has been appropriated and misused by a host of extremists where it has taken on more derogatory and sinister connotations. In fact, “takfiri” groups make it their business to indulge in exclusive interpretations of Islam that render the mainstream so narrow, that the majority of the practising Muslim world is branded errant. The word was then further hijacked by Islamophobes and neocons who pounced on it as Islamic parlance for a despised west. As with most controversial terms, intent and audience are also paramount. Muslim extremists use the expression to describe even Jews and Christians, with an intent to demonise, marginalise and foster a mentality in which community spirit is deemed to be under siege. I have heard the word used in mosques in Saudi Arabia where the “kuffar” were virtually all non-Sunni Muslims and in informal gatherings where it denoted little more than “non-believer”.

Where does the right to free speech end and the need to ban offensive and inciting language begin? For example, it is ever more popular and acceptable to insult believers or mock their intellectual and moral fibre. AC Grayling describes believers as “those who smugly embrace ignorance“. This echoes the voluntary rejection of truth suggested by the word “kaffir”. He states that “people of faith have rejected the benefits of an open mind”. To most staunch believers, the obvious righteousness of their conviction means no other is tenable. Therefore, not adopting their stance becomes a deliberate rejection either through some deficiency of mind, malady of spirit or weakness of character. The crucial difference is, however, that non-believers are not then acting on this conviction, and isolating themselves in communities to the exclusion of those who have faith. Is it time to reclaim the term from such extremists and rid it of the stigma with which it has been imbued? Use it in religious argot carefully in exclusively Muslim company where there is former consensus regarding its connotation? My feeling is that if the word is offensive to non-Muslims, and even Muslims to whom it is attributed, rather than fight for the same right of others to be offensive and wade through the different explanations, contexts and Qur’anic permutations in order to justify the use of the term, perhaps it is better to replace it voluntarily and sensitively with one less charged. This is not succumbing to politically correct bullying that applies only to Muslims, it is simply defaulting to good manners. It may not eradicate antagonism to non-Muslims, but it’s a start. Language informs our attitudes as much as it reflects them.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogIt is good manners, not political correctness, to reject the word ‘kaffir’

Related posts:How to convert a Word doc or HTML to Wiki Markup Forbidden Word Word of Mouth

February 23 2011, 9:16am | Comments »

I posted to distributedresearch.net

It is good manners, not political correctness, to reject the word ‘kaffir’

http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/02/23/manners-political-correctness-kaffir-lime-leaves

Never mind all that, I just want to know why I can’t buy kaffir lime leaves any more for my Thai curries.

This article titled “It is good manners, not political correctness, to reject the word ‘kaffir’” was written by Nesrine Malik, for guardian.co.uk on Wednesday 23rd February 2011 14.19 UTC For last week’s instalment of Channel 4′s Dispatches, Lessons in Hate and Violence, teachers and preachers at certain Muslim faith schools in the UK were filmed using the word “kaffir” frequently in reference to non-Muslims. In one interview, a young woman who had previously attended such a school expressed dejection at the fact that her teacher rebuked her for consorting with a “kaffira” – a young, white schoolfriend – when he spotted them outside the school. Kaffir, an Arabic word meaning “disbeliever” or “rejecter”, is an active participle entailing action as opposed to a descriptive noun. In a religious sense it suggests volition, more so than the passive “atheist” or “non-believer”. The root of the word means “to cover” or conceal which adds another dimension of intent to the term; a rejecter of faith who has hidden or concealed the truth. In the Qur’an, Christians and Jews are referred to as “the faithful” – the term “kuffar” (an alternative spelling of “kaffir”) is reserved for those who deny God’s existence but it has sloppily become common vernacular for all non-Muslims. It is one of those words that can be used in jest, hyperbolically mimicking zealous clerics eager to brand as many Muslims and non-Muslims as “kuffir” (as in, “I can see a strand of hair under your hijab, you kaffir”). Due to its frequent use in the Qur’an as a term referring to those who do not believe in God, it can also be taken to mean, in its most non-pejorative sense, purely, “one without faith”. One of the Muslim religious leaders interviewed by Dispatches asserted that the word was offensive, and “othered” non-Muslims, thus standing in the way of integration. The problem with the term is that it originates in a religious and cultural discourse and thus it does not sound too dramatic to audiences in such contexts. In a secular framework it jars, possibly the same way using the word “heretic” or “infidel” in reference to non-Christians or those who have rejected Christian belief would do. In addition, the word has been appropriated and misused by a host of extremists where it has taken on more derogatory and sinister connotations. In fact, “takfiri” groups make it their business to indulge in exclusive interpretations of Islam that render the mainstream so narrow, that the majority of the practising Muslim world is branded errant. The word was then further hijacked by Islamophobes and neocons who pounced on it as Islamic parlance for a despised west. As with most controversial terms, intent and audience are also paramount. Muslim extremists use the expression to describe even Jews and Christians, with an intent to demonise, marginalise and foster a mentality in which community spirit is deemed to be under siege. I have heard the word used in mosques in Saudi Arabia where the “kuffar” were virtually all non-Sunni Muslims and in informal gatherings where it denoted little more than “non-believer”.

Where does the right to free speech end and the need to ban offensive and inciting language begin? For example, it is ever more popular and acceptable to insult believers or mock their intellectual and moral fibre. AC Grayling describes believers as “those who smugly embrace ignorance“. This echoes the voluntary rejection of truth suggested by the word “kaffir”. He states that “people of faith have rejected the benefits of an open mind”. To most staunch believers, the obvious righteousness of their conviction means no other is tenable. Therefore, not adopting their stance becomes a deliberate rejection either through some deficiency of mind, malady of spirit or weakness of character. The crucial difference is, however, that non-believers are not then acting on this conviction, and isolating themselves in communities to the exclusion of those who have faith. Is it time to reclaim the term from such extremists and rid it of the stigma with which it has been imbued? Use it in religious argot carefully in exclusively Muslim company where there is former consensus regarding its connotation? My feeling is that if the word is offensive to non-Muslims, and even Muslims to whom it is attributed, rather than fight for the same right of others to be offensive and wade through the different explanations, contexts and Qur’anic permutations in order to justify the use of the term, perhaps it is better to replace it voluntarily and sensitively with one less charged. This is not succumbing to politically correct bullying that applies only to Muslims, it is simply defaulting to good manners. It may not eradicate antagonism to non-Muslims, but it’s a start. Language informs our attitudes as much as it reflects them.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogIt is good manners, not political correctness, to reject the word ‘kaffir’

Related posts:How to convert a Word doc or HTML to Wiki Markup Forbidden Word Word of Mouth

February 23 2011, 9:16am | Comments »

I posted to friendfeed.com

Legally Blonde and Wicked dominate Whatsonstage.com awards

http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/02/23/legally-blonde-and-wicked-dominate-whatsonstage-com-awards

London talk

Legally Blonde and Wicked dominate Whatsonstage.com awards - http://distributedresearch.net/blog...

yesterday

from Andy Roberts DARnet

Comment
Like

February 23 2011, 5:46am | Comments »

I posted to distributedresearch.net

Legally Blonde and Wicked dominate Whatsonstage.com awards

http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/02/23/legally-blonde-and-wicked-dominate-whatsonstage-com-awards

Legally Blonde, Wicked, Les Miserables, Love Never Dies mentioned.

This article titled “Legally Blonde and Wicked dominate Whatsonstage.com awards” was written by Mark Brown, for The Guardian on Sunday 20th February 2011 19.00 UTC They are both West End productions which appeal to teenage girls and young women and they were both crowned big winners at the only major theatre awards voted on exclusively by the public. The 11th Whatsonstage.com awards were handed out in central London with Legally Blonde the Musical winning the most. The feelgood show, about a pink-obsessed society girl who astounds and dazzles everybody at law school, won four prizes including best new musical and best choreography. Sheridan Smith, who co-hosted the ceremony, was named best actress in a musical for her portrayal of Elle Woods and Jill Halfpenny, the one time Geordie police officer turned nail salon owner in EastEnders, won best supporting actress in a musical for her role as a sassy hairdresser, Paulette. Wicked the Musical, with its enormous social networking savvy fanbase, always does well in any public vote and it won best West End show for the second year running. It has been dropped from this year’s Olivier prize public vote to give someone else a chance. Rachel Tucker also won best takeover in a role for her performance as green witch Elphaba. Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical Love Never Dies, which got off to a rocky critical start but this month extended its run into 2012, won two prizes for best actor (Ramin Karimloo) and best supporting actor (Joseph Millson). Les Miserables’ 25th birthday celebrations were celebrated. The anniversary concert at the O2 was event of the year and best ensemble performance and the production at its first home, the Barbican, was best musical revival. In the straight play categories, the all-black cast Cat on a Hot Tin Roof won best play revival, Howard Brenton’s Anne Boleyn at Shakespeare’s Globe was best new play, Yes, Prime Minister was best new comedy and the National Theatre’s Hamlet was named best Shakespearean production. Zoe Wanamaker and David Suchet were named best actress and actor in a play for All My Sons, with Tamsin Greig named best supporting actress for The Little Dog Laughed and Nigel Lindsay best supporting actor for Broken Glass at the Tricycle. Glee star Jonathan Groff was named newcomer of the year for Deathtrap. Terri Paddock, whatsonstage.com’s editorial director, said the awards were different to the Oliviers, where theatres such as the Donmar Warehouse and Royal Court routinely dominated. “Our 45,000-plus theatregoer votes have instead, once again, concentrated their accolades on the strong work produced by the commercial sector. “It’s fantastic to see crowd-pleasers like Legally Blonde, Les Miserables and Yes, Prime Minister receive the recognition they deserve, alongside smaller but equally worthwhile productions like Broken Glass and Anne Boleyn.”

Book Theatre Breaks Online Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogLegally Blonde and Wicked dominate Whatsonstage.com awards

Related posts:The Third Annual Satin Pajama Awards 2006 Edublog awards – classroom displays blog nominated Folk Awards 2007

February 23 2011, 5:46am | Comments »

I posted to distributedresearch.net

Legally Blonde and Wicked dominate Whatsonstage.com awards

http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/02/23/legally-blonde-and-wicked-dominate-whatsonstage-com-awards

Legally Blonde, Wicked, Les Miserables, Love Never Dies mentioned.

This article titled “Legally Blonde and Wicked dominate Whatsonstage.com awards” was written by Mark Brown, for The Guardian on Sunday 20th February 2011 19.00 UTC They are both West End productions which appeal to teenage girls and young women and they were both crowned big winners at the only major theatre awards voted on exclusively by the public. The 11th Whatsonstage.com awards were handed out in central London with Legally Blonde the Musical winning the most. The feelgood show, about a pink-obsessed society girl who astounds and dazzles everybody at law school, won four prizes including best new musical and best choreography. Sheridan Smith, who co-hosted the ceremony, was named best actress in a musical for her portrayal of Elle Woods and Jill Halfpenny, the one time Geordie police officer turned nail salon owner in EastEnders, won best supporting actress in a musical for her role as a sassy hairdresser, Paulette. Wicked the Musical, with its enormous social networking savvy fanbase, always does well in any public vote and it won best West End show for the second year running. It has been dropped from this year’s Olivier prize public vote to give someone else a chance. Rachel Tucker also won best takeover in a role for her performance as green witch Elphaba. Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical Love Never Dies, which got off to a rocky critical start but this month extended its run into 2012, won two prizes for best actor (Ramin Karimloo) and best supporting actor (Joseph Millson). Les Miserables’ 25th birthday celebrations were celebrated. The anniversary concert at the O2 was event of the year and best ensemble performance and the production at its first home, the Barbican, was best musical revival. In the straight play categories, the all-black cast Cat on a Hot Tin Roof won best play revival, Howard Brenton’s Anne Boleyn at Shakespeare’s Globe was best new play, Yes, Prime Minister was best new comedy and the National Theatre’s Hamlet was named best Shakespearean production. Zoe Wanamaker and David Suchet were named best actress and actor in a play for All My Sons, with Tamsin Greig named best supporting actress for The Little Dog Laughed and Nigel Lindsay best supporting actor for Broken Glass at the Tricycle. Glee star Jonathan Groff was named newcomer of the year for Deathtrap. Terri Paddock, whatsonstage.com’s editorial director, said the awards were different to the Oliviers, where theatres such as the Donmar Warehouse and Royal Court routinely dominated. “Our 45,000-plus theatregoer votes have instead, once again, concentrated their accolades on the strong work produced by the commercial sector. “It’s fantastic to see crowd-pleasers like Legally Blonde, Les Miserables and Yes, Prime Minister receive the recognition they deserve, alongside smaller but equally worthwhile productions like Broken Glass and Anne Boleyn.”

Book Theatre Breaks Online Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogLegally Blonde and Wicked dominate Whatsonstage.com awards

Related posts:The Third Annual Satin Pajama Awards 2006 Edublog awards – classroom displays blog nominated Folk Awards 2007

February 23 2011, 5:46am | Comments »

London Breaks

Can Scandinavian crime fiction teach socialism?

Can Scandinavian crime fiction teach socialism?

Can Scandinavian crime fiction teach socialism?

It is good manners, not political correctness, to reject the word ‘kaffir’

It is good manners, not political correctness, to reject the word ‘kaffir’

It is good manners, not political correctness, to reject the word ‘kaffir’

Legally Blonde and Wicked dominate Whatsonstage.com awards

Legally Blonde and Wicked dominate Whatsonstage.com awards

Legally Blonde and Wicked dominate Whatsonstage.com awards

London Theatre Breaks Links

Popular Tags

Search