“Tree” highlights the need for Credit Arbitration for playwrights

A thought prompted by the Mark Brown article in The Guardian.

The abridged version of the story is that Tori Allen-Martin and Sarah Henley were removed from a theatre production after four years of work.

“Tree” now claims it was created by Kwame Kwei-Armah and Idris Elba, and has failed to acknowledge both women for their contribution.

You should also read the Medium article Tree. A Story of Gender and Power in Theatre, where they explain in their own words what happened.

What strikes me after reading this, is how weak both were made to feel, and how little power they had to have their claims recognised. Basically if you don’t have huge reserves of cash to litigate, there’s not much you can do.

Anyone who knows anything about screenwriting knows that writers are frequently replaced. A new writer is brought in to do a rewrite or polish, punch up the dialogue, fix this hole in the plot, the list goes on.

When this all goes tits-up, and there is a dispute over credit, screenwriters can turn to the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain Credit Arbitration service for help.

The aim of the service is to ensure “each writer’s contribution to the shooting script is properly valued and rewarded with the correct credit”.

There doesn’t seem to be an equivalent service for playwrights. It’s probably something the Guild should get into, but for some arcane reason, can’t.

I wish nothing but good fortune to both Allen-Martin and Henley. You’re not alone, we’ve all felt that same weight, frustration, and disappointment.

Delegitimising the British left

The “determined effort in both the British media and the wider political elite to delegitimise the Labour leadership in particular and the broader left as a whole” is a strategy that I hope most people can see through.

Medium

Aggressively attacking someone while simultaneously framing themselves as the victims of an attack is a sign of desperation. It frames a reasonable point of view into an act of mindless aggression. We should stop engaging in these tactics. We need to find ways to reframe the issues. What the right manages to do is turn reasonable intelligent debate into emotional outpourings. They appeal to the gut not to the head. They appeal to emotion and not intellect. The left has to find ways to engage with the wider world on an emotional level without sinking into the spite of the right. If they don’t the conversation will end up being something akin to the vitriolic exchanges of an acrimonious divorce.