´óÏó´«Ã½

I listened with interest on Thurs to the rather empty discussion - with Marie Louise herself trying to keep it going - on the adaptation of Ibsen's A Doll's House - renamed and repackaged A Doll. I went to see it to night and sate through 45 minutes of utter boredom. I think the author talked about getting it down to the bare bones - and removing it from any context - making it European ? What was achieved was a piece that was mind numbingly badly written with lumps of Ibsen awkwardly stitched together and then soliloquies used as fillers to keep us informed as to where it was supposed to be going. It was visually boring - the actual direction and movement on stage was limited - although perhaps we should give 5/10 for the dance being used as a metephor - the acting was painful but brave - the dress non existent - Non of this minimalism focused the audience on the marriage but more how lacking in imagination and creative interpretation and directing the whole sorry event actually was. I was very disappointed indeed and felt this ground breaking and still vitally relevent drama was reduced to 45 mimutes of non stop stitched up dialogue which eventually lost its dynamic and just became boring. Pity - to misuse the work of a great dramatist in such a way which neither illuminated nor broke new ground.

I'm a living in British Columbia, Canada. As such, I'm very much aware of the importance of funding for the arts...

Over the past few years of our current government administration, we British Columbians have experienced the worst cuts to arts funding in decades. Although it's been a hotly debated issue here for quite a while, the platitudes and justifications for our now almost non-existent arts funding, were that the money was being diverted to fund the Olympic Games, the long-term positive effects from which the collective 'we' would all benefit.

Only those not aware that we even have an arts community, or those dropped on their heads as infants, actually believed the justifications to be true.

As of course - they aren't. In point of fact, the local festivals, arts and entertainment venues, public arts-related events, etc. have all decreased to near invisibility over the past few years.

This directly affects the tourism industry which we rely upon quite heavily. Tourists come to Vancouver and find very little to do in terms of entertainment or culture.

In part because we've actually been referred to for some time as the 'No Fun City'. It's an accurate description. Trying to find something interesting and fun to do in this city (that doesn't involve communing with nature) is pretty near impossible. Which is why many of our visitors, never return.

My long-winded point is that funding for the arts is not just beneficial for those directly involved in arts communities. An artistic and culturally rich city (or town) is one that will flourish economically as well.

Arts are the reason that London, Paris, Rome, Florence and New York have been the most visited cities in the world for centuries.