BBC News: "When I arrived I realised that there was something very, very important going on -- like a revolution - a cultural revolution. That's why I'm here."
And like other actors and their supporters, Martina now lives in the theatre. The activists have maintained a constant presence on the premises ever since.
4 comments:
I disagree completely with this article. This is just another example of American liberals spreading their communist agenda to other countries. I don't understand what's wrong with making money and being rich. It's also completely foreign to me as how someone can not understand their government's decisions to save money and improve their country. Would the Occupiers occupy a bridge that's 200 years old that's no longer being used? Or a historical building where no one meets anymore?
The Occupiers should trust their government to (regardless of their history of poor economic decisions and brief embrace of fascism)make the best decisions for their citizens. If you Occupy a building, even if you think you have a good reason, you are breaking the law and asking to be arrested. I don't care what kind of collective democracy you must have developed to sustain a 5-month occupancy, the law is the law. If the government says something is illegal, it's illegal and you should listen. I can't wait for the global Occupy movement to fizzle away and die and we can all get back on track: business as normal.
Before voicing an opinion about this, I'd like to know more about the situation and what exactly the government plans to do with the building. I think it would be wrong to turn in to a restaurant. I think it would be important to preserve the culture of the building and it would be great to restore the theater and rent it out, as well as, adding a public educational element. Yes, it wouldn't be public, but on the other hand it gets preserved.
I agree wholeheartedly with Matt. How can these 'activists' honestly believe that they can produce better theatre than the local government will sponsor? We all know that governments produce the most politically accurate and truthful stories to put on stage. Plus, if the government was considering privatizing the theater, it becomes downright immoral for them to occupy the theatre. By keeping it public, they are preventing a number of wealthy people from siphoning out the remaining tax money to buy improved yachts. THe timing adds to the gravity of this ethical issue - with all of the eurozone calling for austerity measures, by the time the privatization is complete the public funds might be so locked down that the companies that run the theatre only earn two to three times market value for their services. Despicable.
Matt and Ethan need not be so short sited. It is the responsibility of the government to nourish the arts. Funding for the arts should be the top of the agenda. That a country with such a noble art history would stoop to this is appalling. I know that these are tough economic times and but who wants to live in a country without government sponsored theatre? There are plenty of rich people who live in Italy and drive expensive German made sports cars. Why can’t we pass a law that would take some of their money and use it to support some kind of resident nudist mime troupe in this space? I for one would be willing to give an extra 15% of my income to support this Italian theatre. I would be for other people giving 15% of their incomes more. If we do not have government funded arts, how will our children ever be exposed to the works of David Mammet?!
Post a Comment