© dw bogle 2002

Sinead Cusack

Now you would imagine that before turning up to ask for 50 million shekels they might have rehearsed the answers to some not too unpredictable questions, such as "Why should we give you 50 million, when the NHS is in a mess and reliable trains come along somewhat less regularly than Halley's Comet?".   Apparently not;  when Ms Shipley said "You do not reach out to my constituents", and pointed out that at the rougher end of town nobody goes to the theatre, Mr Noble was left decidedly nonplussed;  the best he could manage, would you believe, was to suggest that, "In an ideal world, there would be resources both for Stratford and your constituents".  Well, yes.   And in an ideal world we could all drink champagne, and live for ever, and in our spare time make moonbeams out of cucumbers.   But it is not an ideal world, so do not expect Mr Noble's musings to bring about a revolution in economics.

If anything, Ms Cusack's contributions were even more arch.  She stated that she herself hated the "exclusivity" of British theatre, and revealed that:

There are expensive seats, and there are the poor devils at the back who can barely hear and barely see.

So we are all to have seats in the front row, are we?  And who is to design this Caucus theatre?   M. C. Escher perhaps?    But if you think Ms Cusack's architectural ambitions are fun, her social credentials are even more impressive.  Oh yes, she knows all about the wrong end of Stratford:

Shakespeare is our language, and it is your constituents' language ... There is something seriously wrong, because there is the perception of it as where boring old fogeys go...

Humbug, and humbug uttered only for the purpose of justifying the award of £50 million of Lottery money.  New theatres will not bring in the people of the Stratford estates;  money alone does nothing to change the "boring old fogeys" image;  and as for defining the language of Ms Shipley's constituents in terms of Elizabethan verse, what is their music supposed to be? The motets of Thomas Tallis?

But for the moment let us leave Ms Cusack to her passion for outreach (and her £1m castle in Ireland);   for if millionaire actors speak rubbish, they simply cannot compete with billionaire fashion designers...   

Giorgio Armani has built up a £1.2 billion fashion empire.  Nothing wrong with that in itself, but since for years he has clearly seen nothing outside his own world of image, wealth and beautiful models, does that stop him pronouncing on the rest of us?   No such luck.   Armani has made his fortune from convincing people that they must have designer wear, and that they need to buy the most expensive gear simply to be "exclusive".  So what does he now complain about?   Why, consumerism of course.  The world according to Giorgio is now all about "having the newest watch", and today's youth "does not value sacrifice".   Some might point out that Armani has done rather well out of people wanting the newest watch, but that - we must assume - is different.   Let's not be too hard on him, though, for Giorgio the bloke next door is very proud of his less expensive range "for the ordinary people".  This includes such items as jeans priced at no more than £100, and fetching sweatshirts at only £150.   Will he put Oxfam out of business?   Watch this space.

Giorgio Armani and Sinead Cusack both belong to a luvvie world, where image and glamour is central to their existence.   They and their colleagues work long and unusual hours, and will rarely mix with people outwith their own professions.  It is not really surprising that Ms Cusack imagines the inhabitants of Stratford's worst estates to be thirsting for iambic pentameters, or that on Planet Armani £100 is the price that the less privileged pay for a pair of jeans.   But is there no-one to keep these people from making fools of themselves?   Who do they think they are?   Royalty?

¹ It will be - despite Ms Shipley's mischievous intervention