Update (6/7/11): Progress has been made, discussions are ongoing https://operanorth.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/bridlington-update/
Beached was commissioned by Opera North as part of its work to engage communities and young people in the Bridlington area through active participation in an exciting, bold and visionary new work which they would help bring to life. Had we been in a position to perform the piece, the results would have shown just what a excellent new work Beached is and what inspirational achievement is possible through projects such as this, which Opera North prides itself in offering.
The fact that the piece can no longer be performed due to the withdrawal of the major school participant is deeply disappointing for everyone involved in the project to date, not least many young people, and we regret that the efforts of the Bridlington community can no longer be rewarded by a public performance.
The decision of the main school to withdraw from the project – which saw 300 participants removed in one go – was the fundamental and only reason that Opera North had to cancel the planned performances. Opera North has worked tirelessly to urge the school to continue its involvement and continues to fully support the work and the messages it tried to convey through the story.
We do have to recognise that this project is being treated as part of the core curriculum for the school concerned, and to that extent very different from a community project where participation is voluntary.
Opera North did recognise that some of the subject matter contained within the piece would need to be handled in ways which would be appropriate to the age and background of the performers and intended audience. We have been working with both the librettist, the school and participants to achieve a solution which was appropriate.
Opera North does not consider the subject matter to require censorship nor do we feel that the inclusion of the themes was inappropriate to the intended audience and participants; and there was no attempt to excise a gay character from the piece. Lee Hall has been willing to introduce changes and make adjustments to the libretto, but in relation to the scene which has caused the most difficulty for the school, Lee refused to make any further change, as is his right as a librettist.
We regret that some people associated with the project have decided to view the decision not to proceed with performances as being based on a homophobic fear on the part of Opera North. This is utterly at odds with the reality of the company’s ethos about inclusivity, diversity and access to all, indeed Opera North prides itself on its stance towards sexuality.
Opera North feels that the decision by Lee Hall to suggest that the production was cancelled due to a homophobic stance on the part of the company is unacceptable. It is so at odds with the reality of our views on the issue, and so publicly misrepresents the situation in such a demeaning way.
Richard Mantle
General Director | Opera North
Update:
Richard and Lee Hall were on Breakfast on BBC 1 on Tuesday morning – watch here
Richard and Lee were also both on BBC Radio Five Live – listen here (at approx 2hrs 15mins into the programme)
Opera North 
July 4, 2011 at 6:06 pm
It is ridiculous and offensive for anyone to seek to accuse Opera North of homophobia. If there is anywhere where an LGBT person can feel accepted it is an opera company, anywhere in the world. The school and the LA have a lot to answer for and should now go public and explain their reasons, rather than sit back and let Opera North take the flak.
It was very dispiriting to see on Twitter this morning that so many people made assumptions about Opera North’s alleged conduct based on the Guardian piece. It is easy for people to over-react and jump on the bandwagon of attacking homophobia but please direct the criticism towards those who perhaps deserve it the most. Opera North certainly do not.
July 4, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Thank you for this considerate and sensible response to the outcry. ON is well-know for it’s thoughtful, inclusive and sensitive attitude. Long may your wonderful productions, community projects and performance continue.
July 4, 2011 at 6:20 pm
It might help if you made it clear you abhor the stance of the school and local authority, Richard. This sets us back years and your studied neutrality on such a critical issue encourages the kind of criticism to which you have been subjected today.
July 4, 2011 at 7:19 pm
I second that.
July 4, 2011 at 9:50 pm
I completely agree. Richard – why did you say ‘we’re not taking sides’ earlier today? Where was your defence of the writer and his freedom? Diversity is more than a policy or a posture – it resides in the way situations like this are dealt with. Opera North has dealt with this appallingly and the company fully deserves the anger that has been directed towards it. Failing to stand up for a commissioned artist in the face of bigotry like this is unforgivable.
July 5, 2011 at 8:55 am
Its still a very weak response and fails to address the concerns about the lack of courage of Opera North in their response initially and still doesnt come out and say what Opera Norths principles are on equality or what it thinks of the censorship proposed by the school or the inaccuracies in the council comments to the media
It seems that Opera North presume that a policy and stance, and having LGBT people in the employment of the organisation and patrons of the organisation is sufficient to demonstrate equality. No, its an attitude that should permeate the decision making of the organisation. It should influence each and every response. Its been missing in the handling of this scenario.
July 5, 2011 at 3:16 pm
precisely
July 6, 2011 at 7:24 am
I disagree. The school, and the parents have every right to censor language and tone of speech where 4-10 year olds are concerned. Don’t you understand that parents can dislike things with being bigoted, bias or homophobic? What is the world coming to when a parent can’t have control over what their children are exposed to without a bunch of loony lefters chucking unwarranted and undeserved abuse and insult? We don’t HAVE to like homosexuality, it isn’t compulsory and neither should it. We should be entitled to the freedom of choice to have our own thoughts and beliefs without this nonsense. Gays want to insult and abuse straight people, as this article proves, but let a straight person express their views regarding homosexuality and they are condemned. Live and let live but make it equal for both sides.
July 4, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Thank you for making a comment as General Director of Opera North.
It is helpful to have a response from the publicly visible strategic leader.
It seems that you and Opera North do not understand the veracity of concern that exists today following the decision that Beached! can not be staged.
I doubt very much that anyone prior to this decision or the PR handling of this incident would have seen Opera North as anything other than a reputable and talented group of artistes (and supporters) who have a commitment to artistic integrity and equality. If anyone had asked me I would have perceived Opera North to have the highest standards of honesty, integrity and equality. However, this incident and the manner with which it has been handled in the public arena does cause questions to be asked about the image that Opera North have today portrayed with regards equality and integrity. it seems in the public statements today that Opera North has tried to be all things to all people.
Lets say at the outset, that any decision by an individual school (supported or not by its LEA) is not a decision that Opera North has made. Opera North have also stated that they have sought to influence that school opinion. I (and I do not think anyone else) am not suggesting that Opera North are purporting that homosexuality is an inappropriate subject for a contemporary opera, nor am I suggesting that Opera North endorse such a view.
The view point that the school and the LEA have reach is draconian and devalues gay people. It stigmatises them as people who need to be censored and hidden away. It condemns them to live in the shadows and not be a fully honest human being contributing successfully to society The message portrayed is very much this, since (my understanding) the opera does not refer to any sexual activity nor gay relationships. Such a view logically leads to a situation whereby gay people are treated differently to heterosexual people. Giving this message in an educational environment tacitly suggests that it is acceptable to devalue gay people or treat them differently. This message is wrong, offensive and bigoted. Its patronising and inaccurate to suggest children are unaware and unable to deal with the existence of homosexuality in society.
I have to wonder what initial negotiation took place between Opera North, the school and Lee Hall. Hall in his work is well known for sensitive and caring handling of sexuality issues. It is clear that in a contemporary opera with Hall’s involvement that contemporary issues and issues of sexuality may occur. These should have been explored diplomatically well in advance of such a decision occurring. Did the brief to Hall explain explicitly the stand point of the school and LEA on the sexuality issues involved?
I note that Opera North has tried to negotiate between Hall and the school and that these negotiations have resulted in some redrafting of the opera but that on artistic and moral grounds Hall was not prepared to redraft this particular set of lyrics requested by the school. I note Opera North supports Hall in his artistic right to take such a stance. However, Opera Norths failure to criticise the schools stance outlined above which is bigoted and treats gay people differently sends out a message (whether intended or not) that Opera North endorse such treatment and views held by the school. The lack of criticism furthermore undermines all the good work that Opera North has done in the field of equality. By failing to critcise and appearing to back down you tacitly encourage divisive homophobia within society and within education in general.
Its wholly appropriate that you should stand by your art, stand by your writer, stand by your values and stand by the right of individuals and organisations connected to the work to make decisions (whether you agree with the morality or not) not to continue to participate. However, you are sending a very mixed messages and not demonstrating a consistent position. You also attack your writer in the most recent statement – which further inflames the integrity of your position.
At the moment you became aware of the conflict between the schools prejudiced position, and that following some discussion that there views were intractable and intransigent, Opera North should have shown morality, integrity and courage and withdrawn to support your writer and artistic integrity.
I am particularly disappointed at two things from Opera North. The lack of admitting you have made an error of judgement, a mistake and thus the absence of any form of apology. Secondly, the twisting of words to suggest that anyone finding the behaviour of Opera North to be tacitly homophobic are wrong is offensive. As I have said, I have no doubt Opera North are committed to equality – your poor decisions in the handling of this matter do not demonstrate that.
As someone else has said today, your responsibility is not to please everyone, but to do what is right both artistically and morally.
You appear to be endorsing the reluctance of the school to have homosexual characters in the opera. That is wrong and your explanations are derisory. Artistic organisations should challenge and engage and not sit on the fence. Your lack of courage in handling this suggests you are not prepared to stand up to bigotry and homophobia.
Shame on you.
July 4, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Well said.
July 4, 2011 at 9:25 pm
This absolutely nails it. Case closed. Nothing further ON can say will make the situation any better because what they have done (or not done) already is too damning in the public’s eyes, despite what they may say.
July 5, 2011 at 10:44 am
I slightly disagree – there are actions that ON can take. I have emailed both Richard Mantel and the Head of Marketing with some suggestions. Disappointingly I have yet to have any response to my constructive suggestions as to how to move forward in this matter and demonstrate a commitment to equality, diversity and artistic integrity. The lack of response (albeit early days) suggests a lack of commitment.
July 4, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Yes, perfectly put.
July 5, 2011 at 7:39 am
I fully endorse this statement. ON’s refusal to support the author of the piece, and the children who have been looking forward to performing it after months of rehearsal, can unfortunately only be interpreted as having been made through a homophobic haze.
It’s mere cavil to pretend to have taken a neutral position of intermediary. Where discrimination is involved, there are principles at stake, and ON needed to demonstrate that it can take a principled stand.
Children are surrounded by representations of sexuality all the time (did the school involved have any activities or teaching around the recent royal wedding for example?). Some of their parents, sisters, brothers, aunties, friends, will be lesbian and gay. Let alone some of the singers and musicians with whom the children will have been in contact during rehearsals.
ON is the only opera company which performs in my town. I will reconsider whether to continue to patronise its productions.
July 5, 2011 at 9:12 am
This is surely the definitive statement on this matter. You heard it, ON: shame on you.
July 4, 2011 at 6:48 pm
This all seems to come from a most unfortunate decision from the school and their LEA and one would hope the people of Bridlington would ask of the school and their local councillors for a proper explanation of actions which seem to have catapulted us back to 1970s prejudices… that said Lee Hall has not really come out of this very well…
Some of the comments left on the guardian website and on the ON website from people supposedly contesting prejudice and affirming equality were every bit as rabid, every bit as misinformed as the stereotypical Fox news/Glenn Beck rightwing ‘nut’ in the states and personally it is hard to see how that sort of shout louder politics does the liberal/progressive cause in this country much good…
July 4, 2011 at 7:55 pm
I could not disagree more. The original , and second statement, by Opera North condoned homophobia through its cowardly stance.
In the first statement Opera North said it “‘appreciate the viewpoint’ of the school. That viewpoint being that the reference to a character being gay should be removed – a view which states homosexual people should remain invisible as far as children are concered.
In its second statement Oper North says that the school’s ” its teaching staff and the governing body, is legally and morally within its rights…”
To say that it a school is morally right to state gay people should remain invisible to primary children is morally repugnent.
For both these statements Opera North should apologise.
July 5, 2011 at 9:32 am
having worked in so called gay friendly firms – you are so wrong
Lee Hall comes out of this with alot of dignity – he is not responsible for the reactions of others on the Guardian’s website
July 5, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Lee hall has been treated abysmally, both by the school and LEA, in taking the action that they did, and by ON in their utter failure to support him.
He has come out of this discussion unblemished, unless viewed through the lense of an opinion that uppity gays should shut up and get back in the closet, at least until everyone is 21 or some equally arbitrarily selected age.
July 4, 2011 at 7:10 pm
How dare ON come up with the knee jerk response above that it was not a homophobic decision – the writer can not possibly have time to investigate the matter.
Will ON investigate the matter and publish its results?
This is a formal request for ON to investigate the matter under its own anti discrimatory procedures.
July 4, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Anyone with a primary school aged child can hardly be unaware of the level of homophobia that is regularly exhibited by many children ‘as young as five’. My observation is that this is about the age that gay taunting often seems to begin. On a day when ‘early intervention’ has been in the headlines, it seems extraordinary that the LEA concerned should not welcome the opportunity offered by a project like this to introduce the subject of homophobia in its primary schools, rather than participating in the crime by supporting the withdrawal of the school involved. I must say that I’m extremely disappointed that the management of Opera North has not taken a more principled stand in this crisis. I only hope that the public row will serve the highlight the kind of institutionalised homophobia that is so prevalent in primary schools, if not usually in opera houses.
July 6, 2011 at 8:38 am
The “Crisis” is that expressed by this clear majority, that feel that it is OK to present Homosexuality, or any form of sexuality to a a 5 year old. My concern is that we live in an over-sexualized world, which is driven by popular media. Every adult is aware that just because something is popular, does not mean that it is right. Our children are being exposed to more and more filth at younger and younger ages, and where will it stop? And what is wrong with having a traditional view on the matter? We don’t know what the outcome will be of this kind of over-sexualization, because our society has never been in this position. But we can see there are more teenage pregnancies, more sex-related crimes, and more sexual abuse than ever before. So what is wrong with a school standing up to liberality. What have they achieved in doing this? I think it’s fundamentally positive for the school to have acted in this way to protect it’s children, and the school should have every right to restrain and monitor the level of exposure to such subjects. If we take away the school’s rights to do this, I think we are bowing to poplar opinion, and not what is best for the children. Lee was asked by the school for something to be omitted from the play, and when he refused, the school withdrew. So basically Lee is is attempting to force his version of the world onto a school, where the teachers are primarily concerned for the children. Lee is primarily concerned with pushing his view onto others. It’s selfish and he should accept the school has right to do what it must to teach these children in the best possible way. All he had to do was take that out of the play. But he couldn’t, and as I understand it, that line was not even integral to the play. Pride goes before the fall.
July 6, 2011 at 10:43 am
Joe Orton lives! Sex = Filth!! Are you serious?
As for the young~ can’t babies recognise gender? And don’t notions of sexuality accrue round this perception quite a bit before the age of 5? At what age do you think children need to begin awareness that sex (including orientation) is a normal part of our lives, not just a matter for hole-in-corner playground sniggering? 8 might be a bit late, I should have thought.
As for teenage pregnancies~ aren’t these more usually associated with ignorance and repression (on one side or both), rather than what you call ‘liberality’? You really need to define your terms.
Of course it matters vitally HOW these issues are presented to children, and their ages and stages of development are crucial in this. But that does not seem to be what the argument is about.
July 6, 2011 at 1:25 pm
for some reason I can’t directly reply to Keith’s comment. That’s right Keith, I said Sex = Filth (sarcasm, if you didn’t recognise it).This over-simplification and resulting judgement is the tried and tested method of the Libertarian. I’m sad that someone who can sling together a few words to sound intelligent, isn’t enough so, to recognize the link between over-sexualization and increases in teenage pregnancies. How far have you gotta go to find someone who does recognize that there has been a degeneration of sexual moral conduct in the media, which is consequently imitated by each successive DEgeneration, with the resultant and often very unwanted teenage pregnancies? I’m not arguing whether homosexuality is moral or not, I’m suggesting that it did us no harm to wait a little longer than the age of 5 to start explaining sex to children. The main issue is, I guess it doesn’t really matter what schools or the government does to halt the spread of salacious material, when at a click of a button, a child can view every variety of sex available on the internet. And I suppose you have nothing wrong with that either.
Then why certification? Because the developmental stage of a child’s brain is the most delicate of any stage in life, and things learned at this stage have greater permanence than any other stage of development. Did you know that addiction to pornography is one the most serious addictions of our time? I work with young offenders, and despite how complex their individual life experiences are, they all agree on one fact; pornography is bad. They link the viewing of it as a loss of innocence, with a resultant numbness. I recognise this “numbness” in our society generally, and wish people who also recognise it would quit fearing the popular masses and say what they think. That there is a general over-sexualization of presentations in the media. Yeh, I’m bit of a traditionalist. But I have never made fun of someone because of their sexuality, nor have I tolerated others doing so. But I do value and applaud this school’s bold stand on their control of what, when and how sex is portrayed, to the grievances of those who will liberalize sex for all.
July 6, 2011 at 3:21 pm
I wonder if you have ever tried to discover how your young offenders learnt about sex in the first place? From only marginally better informed peers and the very pornography you abhor, maybe? I doubt that many of them blame parents or teachers who were at the same time caring and open-minded. They are surely much more likely to complain that nobody understood them.
Children learn prodigiously before the age of five; and not only in the areas which their elders and betters might seek to prescribe for them. Isn’t it preferable they should have the help of balanced adults to make some sense of the full range of what they are hearing and seeing, nice or nasty, and in ways they can understand?
August 7, 2011 at 8:17 am
Jonesy, I’m with you in your passionate determination to protect children from exposure to sexual imagery that they aren’t ready to deal with. But I think in this instance you are confusing gender with sex. I think too many if us when we hear ‘homosexual’ think ‘sex’.
5 year olds being involved in a show where someone else sings ‘I’m queer’ and ‘I prefer lads to lasses’ will not think ‘sex’ or be overexposed to damaging imagery. Children watching daytime TV may be.
July 4, 2011 at 7:47 pm
I am disappointed by the response of people with no knowledge of the subject or company. I know and firmly believe that opera north is not homophobic you just need to look at the track record of ON. I also want to extend my deepest sympathies to ON as this media circus is surely going to have a detrimental effect on the companies future. I hope the impact is not too great and I will be standing solidly with Opera North and also against homophobia/ the schools decision. How sad that this had to take place after the great reviews of Das Rheingold.
July 4, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Tough!
July 4, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Jonathan
My concern is not that Opera North is per se homophobic – I sincerely doubt that, it would suggest a totally different experience to that which I have had in the past both as an audience member and speaking to those involved in Opera North.
My concern is that the handling of the PR in this and the lack of managerial foresight in this leave Opera North appearing weak and lacking courage. They should have come out and explained exactly what happened, explained the wrong decisions of the school – whilst congratulating the school for their courage and willingness to work with opera. They should have stood up for Halls artistic integrity and stated that a homosexual character in a contemporary opera was fully appropriate particularly given the context. They should also have condemned the untruths that the LEA have said in the media. Failure to do that and to publically evidence their credentials on equality does not paint Opera North in a good light.
I hope earnestly that they can recover – but there is going to need to be some eating of humble pie, recongition of mistakes that have been made and a public undertaking to move on in a more courageous manner. This is an opportunity to reestablish a connection to patrons and move ahead by challenging and engaging.
July 5, 2011 at 6:20 am
You state that “you just need to look at the track record of ON.” Well, I’ve got news for you – – – that track record just fell off a cliff. ON caved to bigots. Simple.
July 4, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Rather then attack Lee Hall for opposing homophobia, Richard Mantle and Opera North should have the courage to apologise for the statements it has so far issued.
Despite fine words claiming that they support eqality, they now confirm that “Lee refused to make any further change, as is his right as a librettist.”
Opera North should should have stood by their artist and made it clear to the school that the removal of the ‘offending’ line was unacceptable, and not have made the decision Lee Hall’s alone.
A statement should have been released announcing the cancellation saying that Opera North and Lee Hall regret the cancelation of Beaches, and stand by the ‘finished’ work as suitable for primary children.
Instead Opera North cowardly made no announcement about the cancellation, left it to Lee Hall to corageously raise the subject of homophobia, and then refused to stand by Hall, and to oppose the homophobia stance by the school,
Opera North released statements saying they
1/ “appreciate the viewpoint’ of the school”
2/ “the school’s teaching staff and the governing body, is legally and MORALLY within its rights…”
Even now Opera North refuses to apologise for not opposing homophobia, thus implying that when it comes to primary children – gay people should be invisible.
Opera North has now choosen to attack Lee Hall, while claiming Opera North ” absolutely rejects any accusations that it is at all discriminatory and is dismayed that anyone would draw these conclusions.”
I can only assume that when Opera North writes these things it is trying to be ironic – or can Opera North really be this stupid!!
If Opera North wants to address this issue and prove that it is not discrimatory
then they should apologise for the poor stance it has so far taken on this issue, apologise for not supporting Lee Hall’s refusal to make the change, and explain that it clearly rejects the school’s stance as intolerent and unacceptable.
Until such a statement that comprehensible and incontrovertible shows Opera North’s opposition to homophobia I for one will be working to pursuade ACE that it removes all public grants to Opera North.
July 4, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Thanks this is an excellent response it’s a pity it wasn’t the first statement.
July 5, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Really?
Still pretty weak from where I’m standing.
July 4, 2011 at 10:36 pm
You: “there was no attempt to excise a gay character from the piece.”
Lee Hall: “Word came back from Opera North that, unless I removed the lines ‘I’m queer’ and ‘I prefer a lad to a lass’, the whole project was in jeopardy.”
That rather suggests that one of you is not telling the truth, doesn’t it? Given that this is ON’s third try at a response to the situation, I’m tempted to believe Mr Hall.
Perhaps that’s unfair, but there you go.
July 4, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Of course Opera North is not insitutionally homophobic, but come off it, Richard.
As General Director, you either defend ON’s newly commissioned work as art in which you have real faith, or you do not. You cannot with integrity praise the author for his ‘excellent’ and ‘inspirational’ achievement and at the same time fail to condemn the school for effectively preventing that achivement from reaching the public. The foolish, maidenly posturings of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s Education Department are simply another kind of ever-so-delicate, NIMBY homophobic bullying, and you (and we) should resist it – just as the opera itself tried to.
Imagine the uproar if the school had objected to aspects of an opera on the grounds that it gave voice to struggling black or jewish characters before the school had got round to teaching its pupils about racism or anti-semitism.
How dreadful this must be for the gay men and women who work in schools in East Yorkshire and for the local authority – and there are many of them, some of them parents themselves. Let us hope that your replacement ‘celebration’ will include plenty of music by gay composers (Heaven knows, there are plenty to choose from), performed by some the many gay men and women who regularly work for Opera North.
And hey, why not offer free tickets to local schools, always supposing that their core-curriculum had got as far as music.
July 4, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Whilst I agree that the most disappointing thing about this is the way in which ON have responded, I cannot help but feel that this response gives us an insight into the extent to which ON really does disagree with the school’s views. If ON does so fundamentally believe in diversity then how can they not have responded to the school’s decision in the strongest terms. Their focus has been to save the production. I get you’re an arts organisation, but the stakes here have become much greater. This is about the message this decision sends out to those kids. ON cannot deny that an acceptable outcome for them would have been for the ‘offending’ line to have been removed and for the production to go ahead. ON would then have been complicit in the damage this outcome would have created. Really disappointed in you ON. I can only assume you have been badly advised by an external PR adviser.
July 5, 2011 at 1:56 am
I notice that Opera North defends itself with very vague comments. It says that it tried to negotiate the “offending” scene but don’t tell us what they were negotiating for. What was it that ON was asking Mr. Hall to change in the scene? What did were they asking that he remove? What was it that they wanted the scene to look like in the end? Without VERY clear and unequivocal answers to these questions ON doesn’t have a leg to stand on no matter how many people they can round up to come here to defend them.
For those of you blindly defending ON, YOU should be the first people demanding answers to the question of what changes EXACTLY that they were asking Hall to make. I would think that you would want to know the answer to that question before claiming that they are faultless in the situation.
July 5, 2011 at 5:28 am
You are abating homophobia by even having considered to discuss the matter.
Would ON have been so “understanding” if the school had demanded to remove black people characters?
There are requests to which a simple “get lost” are the only appropriate answer.
July 5, 2011 at 6:53 am
Equality and Diversity does not mean having no opinion and treating everyone the same, but ensuring everyone is equal and has the access to the same information and opportunities. The neutral statement here seems to go against any equal opportunity and diversity policy.
July 5, 2011 at 8:41 am
Why not make a plea to the parents and children of Bridlington to come forward and take part without the school’s support. If you can do it with out taking children out of school, I don’t see it as a problem.
July 5, 2011 at 9:20 am
From the start, both ON and the council have stated that the objections were to the use of language and how social issues are presented in the production, but have done so in such ambiguous terms and without explicitly addressing the lines quoted by Lee Hall that nobody really knows what is going on.
If the issue here really is one of abusive language rather than of presenting a gay character, both the council and ON need to pull their fingers out and state categorically what the problems with the text were and answer Lee Hall’s accusations directly. The longer you do otherwise, the more inclined I and many others will be to believe Mr Hall’s version of events.
July 5, 2011 at 9:27 am
Dudes, the horse has bolted, you can make all the statements you want know because the perception is out there and you’re not putting that back in a bottle anytime soon.
July 5, 2011 at 10:01 am
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me –
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.
July 5, 2011 at 10:20 am
Lee Hall is right: your homophobic reaction to this issue is unacceptable
July 5, 2011 at 11:51 am
Shame on you Opera North – shame on you. I have been a long time supporter of you and enjoyed several of your productions. I will henceforth be cancelling my subscription to your mailings and myself, my family and my friends will not be attending your performances.
Shame on you.
July 5, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Shame on this headmistress, and shame on ON for their handling of the situation. I understand that it would be organisationally challenging, but why on earth not just recruit local children directly, taking the responsibility of whether the content is appopriate away for this bigot and giving it to the parents, at least some of whom might have been a bit more enlightened. As others have said, I can’t believe that a solution along these lines would not have been found in any other circumstances. And the probability that ON has many gay employees does not exempt them from charges of homophobia – many organisations with female workforces are guilty of rampant sexism.
July 5, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I agree. Hear hear!
July 5, 2011 at 1:31 pm
The contention seems to be that there is no objection to a gay character in such a work, ‘just’ (weaselly word) to these few lines alone. Like almost everyone else posting today, I have not read the rest of the libretto, but I do wonder how anybody would know the guy is gay if the words were excised.
Remember way-back-when, Richard, it used to be OK to be queer so long as you and everybody else tacitly proceeded as if you weren’t?
July 5, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Were ON’s actions in this incident homophobic? Well, one thing is clear: They were weak and cowardly. Another thing is almost as clear: ON would not have been so weak and cowardly if the objections to the opera’s content had been based on race or gender prejudice or fear. So if people are using the word “homophobia” to characterize ON’s behavior, I’d suggest ON stop whining and start listening.
July 5, 2011 at 2:00 pm
[…] In a statement on the Web site of Opera North, its general director, Richard Mantle, said the work “can no longer be performed due to the withdrawal of the major school participant,” a decision he said was “deeply disappointing for everyone involved in the project to date, not least many young people,” and “the fundamental and only reason that Opera North had to cancel the planned performances.” […]
July 5, 2011 at 2:47 pm
The fault mlies simply with a dreadful school management – shameful and shoddy in the worst way – and in ON trying to please all the poeple all the time – I am afraid the reputation of ON and the Bay School is permanently damaged. The removal of all parties from the management of both operations might help – vertainly the school deserves a much better headteacher ! What is East rRding Education doing ???
July 5, 2011 at 3:50 pm
http://notsowunderbar.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-opera-north-could-have-said.html
This is what one blogger thinks Opera North should have said
‘Opera North is very disappointed in the decision made by the school to withdraw its pupils from our production, which has come so late as to make the scheduled run impossible. While respecting the concerns of parents and teachers, the company cannot agree with their decision.
We remain committed to producing this opera, and will not allow a dated narrative of shame around homosexuality to prevent us from presenting works of art which feature gay characters. It is not harmful to children for them to be informed that homosexuality exists; it is a simple fact of life. We would welcome the chance to collaborate with any community and school in our catchment area who would like to work with us on mounting a production of ‘Beached’ as it is currently scripted, and greatly regret that it cannot be in Bridlington.’
If Opera North had issued a press statement like this no one would be upset with them. As it is…..
July 5, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Listened to the interview on BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-14013982
Extremely annoying, why does Richard Mantle say what it actually is in the language that the school finds offensive? Rather then these vague generalisations. Can we not have it clearly stated just what the objection is, and what is unacceptable.
Richard repeated his claim that Opera North nor the school wish to remove the gay character, I think he is being disengeneous. The school wishes to remove all references to the character being gay – it has not asked for the character to de deleted, only to put the character in the closet!
Wow, such a stand for equality!! Opera North should be ashamed of their current position.It’s not us its the school, but the school is not at fault!
Get a backbone! Opera North should be ashamed of their current position.
It’s time for Opera North’s board/trustees, to appoint a new artistic director, and other senior management team.
July 5, 2011 at 4:25 pm
o whom it may concern,
As a an artist, a gay person, and a parent of two children, I firmly protest against your decision to pull out of a theatre project which makes me question your ability to educate youngsters. It seems that you still live in a bygone era (the love one dares not speak its name?). To shun a subject of sexuality, such as homosexuality, seems to be heading for discrimination, not to say the promotion of hate crime, or later to the committing of suicide of students who dare not come out of the closet because of your policy of keeping the lid on it.
Unfortunately you cannot tweak words like ‘idiot’, queer, arsehole, twat, peadophile, etc, on the playground. But that’s the real world out there, and you cannot turn the clock back. Benjamin Britten would turn around in his grave. Shame on you!!
Give those children what you made them dream of. A society with people they can trust and believe in. They already discovered there is no Santa Claus.
July 5, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Presumably we can look forward to Pantomime being banned now then? Shame on your duplicity and dishonesty. This isn’t high minded, it panders to the lowest and religious bigotry.
July 5, 2011 at 8:35 pm
It is very disappointing that ON did not become aware early on that there would be difficulty with the school and then make plans for an alternate school or seek voluntary participation from children. I doubt that ON is itself homophobic (without homosexuals opera would have died a natural death 50 years ago), but it apparently at least tacitly condoned the homophobia of those in charge of the schools.
July 5, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Like many others here, I am not persuaded by Mr Mantle’s statement. In comment no. 26 on this page, David Alan gives a fine example of the sort of statement Opera North SHOULD have issued and … COULD have issued. Additionally, Lydia, in comment no. 6, draws our attention to the ways in which not homosexuality but homophobia – in thought, in deed, and above all in speech – is being thrust upon children at a very young age: I would suggest that all of us who are around young children know that it is in primary school that they pick up the language of homophobic abuse (long before they have any clear awareness of what sexuality is, homo or hetero). And that must include parents and teachers in Bridlington too. Here is an area where Bridlington schools could take a stand and lead the way. But instead, it seems, they are desperate to withhold from their pupils any awareness of the very existence of gay people, even fictional gay characters. With the help of Opera North.
Oh for goodness’ sake, the whole thing is too ridiculous for words.
July 5, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Exactly Esme. I tried to think of a way of expressing how utterly horrified I was by this school’s stance and equally by the pathetic response from ON, but in the end I realise – it’s all been said. And yes, too ridiculous for words.
July 5, 2011 at 9:41 pm
How can Mr Mantle be so pusillanimous as to publish this lengthy, hand-wringing statement (finally) expressing his “disappointment” with the school’s decision, when what he ought to be doing is jumping off the fence with the same energy with he now seeks to defend himself. It’s simply not good enough to say “Well, on the one hand… but on the other hand…”. Would he have been as weak and half-hearted if the opera had been denouncing racism or anti-semitism or ?
Either the school authorities were right to object, in which case say so, and say why. Or they are censoring a wonderful opportunity to introduce children to these important issues of prejudice, sexuality and freedom. In which case, take a stand, Mr Mantle!
Having said all that, maybe it’s not the children who actually need the education. It rather looks as though it’s the governors of the school would benefit from learning a thing or two about life in the 21st century. Good grief, have we suddenly travelled back to the 1950’s..?
July 5, 2011 at 10:08 pm
So none of the 300 kids had seen the script 2 weeks before the performance, even though the piece had been in production for a year? Whose job is it to flag up and resolve any potential issues at the very start of the process? Bearing in mind references to homosexuality may be troublesome to 5 year old school children, and heck, I’m sure these references had been on the cards from the day the first rough synopsis came in?
Opera North’s job you say? Well I never….
August 7, 2011 at 7:39 am
Well said, except the sentence “Bearing in mind references to homosexuality may be troublesome to 5 year old school children..”
Homosexuality refers to gender, not sex. I think it’s hugely important that children grow up knowing that heterosexuality is not the only gender. Imagine how it feels to be a young teen coming to the realisation he/she is gay when any talk of that gender has been brushed under the carpet!
July 5, 2011 at 11:36 pm
According to their website the Bridlington Bay Primary School
“Promotes positive attitudes, progress and commitment to education”
Perhaps this is what confused ON? Still, I require a stronger statement from you then when you find this to be a pack of lies Richard.
No use relying on what you did & said yesterday or wrote in your equal opps policy. Stand up for what you believe in the here & now.
July 6, 2011 at 1:13 am
I don’t think you were being consciously homophobic but let’s be honest here its the same kind of homophobia that ignores things such as straight couples kissing but automatically labels gay couples kissing as controversial or inappropriate for children.
Maybe heterosexist is a better word? If the guy in question was singing about wanting to kiss a woman would it be a problem? Or was the entire show cancelled over the use of the word queer? Either way if you really are committed to diversity and inclusion it would be nice for you to take a stance that doesn’t seem at odds with that.
July 6, 2011 at 6:21 am
What hope is there for LGBT rights in this country if even an Opera Company won’t defend them? I hope the Arts Council is watching this carefully.
July 6, 2011 at 8:01 am
My posting was censored, I sent it to NO and got a reply to come and look here, where I posted it too. It would have to be reviewed. In the mean time others were posted, so I believe my was not. I used the wrong words???
July 6, 2011 at 8:02 am
Sorry, I overlooked it. I see it is placed, please don’t post the comment I Made before.
Thanks
July 6, 2011 at 8:59 am
I think there is clearly some missing information in this situation. Someone, somewhere has shown some opposition to the opera and everything has had to come to halt. I highly doubt that Opera North had any objections to the gay references or inclusion of a gay character.
However it has to be remembered that the company’s hands were tied when over half of their cast pulled out at the last minute. What other option do they have? How can they put on a show without a large portion of a cast? How are they going to recruit 300 school children in two weeks and teach them their parts? Pulling the show does not mean that they are agreeing with the school, it just means that there is not very much they can do once such a decision has been made.
I think Opera North have tried to keep themselves out of the situation which is ultimately between the school and Lee Hall as the school are the people that showed an objection to the words and theme of the piece, not Opera North. As there is no one coming forward from the school explaining the problems that they had, Opera North is taking the brunt of the abuse.
I hope that ON does not suffer any long term damage from this difficult situation, I feel they are getting the harsh end of the stick here.
July 6, 2011 at 9:35 am
Taken from the school’s OFSTED report:
“The leadership team has taken concerted and effective action to promote equal opportunities and tackle discrimination . . . The school promotes community cohesion successfully locally but has yet to extend this to a range of different communities.”
I will contact OFSTED to urge them to investigate what is happening at the school as a matter of priority. I would urge concerned parents at the school to do the same, for these actions have been taken specifically and unequivocally in your name.
Remember, any attempt to conflate this issue with ‘parental rights’ is misleading. 300 parents or guardians did not remove their children from the production. Instead, the school management, in consort with the LEA, withdrew 300 children without consulting individual parents.
In addition to the Arts Council, the main funding body for Opera North as I understand it, I have also contacted the Equal Opportunities Commission, who have
“. . . a statutory remit to promote and monitor human rights; and to protect, enforce and promote equality across the nine “protected” grounds – age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership, sexual orientation and gender reassignment.”
I actually hold the school and LEA’s actions to be illegal under current legislation as well as unethical. Again, I would urge those troubled by this to contact the Equal Opportunities Commission and ask them to issue a statement as soon as possible.
.
July 6, 2011 at 9:55 am
I wholeheartedly agree Matthew. The criticisms – some of them outrageous and unfounded – against ON are best directed at the LA and the school, who may or may not have justification for the decision based on the timing of when certain citizenship curriculum topics are to be introduced to primary school children. This is not an easy situation for ON – an opera company for heaven’s sake!, not a human rights or political organization – and they are being unfairly pilloried by large sections of the public who have little understanding of how an ON functions, how its education and community work is implemented and how schools and LAs are also bound by regulations and legislation. To accuse ON of homophobia, or not standing up to it, is nothing but a knee jerk reaction. There are much wider issues here – some beyond ON’s control. Ultimately, when a large proportion of your community has pulled out at the last minute, the show can’t go on.
This has been blown out of proportion and ON are the victim of a witch hunt, dragged into a row about sexual politics instigated by the quite frankly incendiary remarks and conducts of this piece’s author. Write to the school, the LA and get clarification from them about why they pulled out – ask them if the decision was ultimately homophobic or dictated by regulation
July 6, 2011 at 10:18 am
i’m appalled by all of this on all parts that we seem to have gone back to the 1970s. Surely the school, the writer and Opera North had some kind of a meeting to go through the script to see if it was suitable for the children in the school. I didn’t see any objections initially but I may be wrong.
Children are taught at a very early age about sexuality and in my opinion it is important to address that in any aspect that is felt fit. The fact that we have many many shows and TV programmes which address some kind of sexuality is obvious that this needs to change in all areas.
I feel really sorry for the children concerned and the detriment this could have on people who enjoy being in shows could harm any future involvement in such great shows in the future.
July 6, 2011 at 10:26 am
This gets murkier and murkier.
“Mike Furbank, head of improvement and learning for East Riding of Yorkshire Council, said in a statement that “of particularly [sic] concern and offence was a character who groomed and abused children in his early days in Ibiza”.
However, after Hall – the creator of Billy Elliot – protested that the work “does not now and has never contained such a character”, the council quietly withdrew the claim.
July 6, 2011 at 11:28 am
Sir:
I am not disputing the practical issues apparent with trying to replace 300 members of the cast in two weeks; however, the fact that Opera North could be held to ransom by the management of just one primary school does cast doubt upon the robustness of the company’s procedure, to which end I should like to make the following recommendations:
1: That community partners should be expected to behave professionally, and not be permitted to withdraw from a production with only a fortnight’s notice. Whether or not the reason for doing so is legitimate, the school’s management should have been more organised and scrutinised the libretto in advance if they are to insist upon being so sensitive. To ensure this is done, Opera North should make it a contractual requirement that any partner that withdraws from a production on such short notice (to the extent that replacements cannot be found) shall be held fully liable for any financial losses that result (in this case, £15k).
2: That Opera North take measures to engage better contingency plans for the situation of a community partner withdrawing from a project. From my experience in volunteering my services for the outreach activities of the National Youth Orchestra and the University of Cambridge, it seems to be the case that only about half (no exaggeration) of the people who sign up for such activities materialise. In the case of this project, I would have thought a good contingency plan would be to engage several primary schools over several performances of the production, thus reducing the impact of a school pulling out to one cancelled performance (or get another participating school to cover it). This would also increase participation, keeping the funding quangos happy!
3: That Opera North, before resigning itself to a community partner’s withdrawal from a project, attempt to discuss the matter with all the participants, if necessary circumventing the management (so in this case, doing what Lee Hall suggested and contacting the children and parents directly) and offering the opportunity for individuals to defy their institution’s decision to withdraw from the project.
As for the reasons for withdrawal, I am led to the belief that the school’s management is being homophobic, unless the taboo they are imposing upon the mere mention of homosexual relationships applies equally to heterosexual relationships as well. Based upon the information available in the media (Guardian, Independent, BBC, &c.), these are the facts of the scene with which the school’s management took issue:
*the scene in question did not actually involve any of the children.
*no intercourse or sexual assault takes place.
*the most explicit references are “I prefer a lad to a lass” and “I’m queer” — if such statements are unacceptably innuendous, then, by the same logic (that is, assuming that the school’s management are truthful when saying that they are not homophobic), just about any mention of any interaction with any other person/people is surely taboo.
In conclusion, I believe that the behaviour of the school’s management is unprofessional and unacceptable in the extreme, and they should all instantly (or by the end of this academic year) lose their jobs without any renumeration/compensation. I shall be writing a letter to the school in question to express my discontent.
July 6, 2011 at 1:23 pm
ON very clearly gave credence to homophobia, apologizing for the existance of a gay character. This is appalling, homophobic, and surely a professional organisation should have procedures to deal with such issues from the start. Do they ever watch and consider the stories in these operas!? As for witchhunting all I can say is Oh, you poor middle class white males and females, I know how you suffer at he hands of cruel minorities, and how easy the minorities have it. You can see from the line you tried to cut can’t you! Lee Hall is also a victim here.
July 6, 2011 at 5:31 pm
sorry need to say one other thing here. Some heterosexual kids have difficult teen years, and I don’t want to say thier troubles are nothing, because they aren’t BUT really, what about the troubles gay kids face? They are really monumental and you get suicide and all kinds of stuff. And more than that how many apparently heterosexual kids who commit suicide are fighting with a homophobic upbringing by thier parents. Gay kids face monumental problems yet she seems ONLY concerned with the problems of heterosexual kids, she just couldn’t give a ****** that LGBT kids face far more problems, this caring woman.