Bloody hell, this article is shocking and the grooming techniques Goode used are so familiar:
“For new performers, the rules of The Field were not always clear. One of the tactics Goode used to enable his manipulation was the use of “extremely technical, abstract academic language that became the currency in the room,” says Blue. It was so impenetrable that Hopkins began to assume his inability to understand Goode’s vision was a flaw in him. “People would see the work and read things into it that I didn’t. They’d use language where I just couldn’t work out what they meant from it.” Ultimately, he was left feeling “stupid… by people not wanting to seem dumb”.
This breakdown of communication in rehearsals didn’t only serve to humiliate. With no way of talking normally and directly to each other, no one could address moments in rehearsals where their sexual or physical boundaries had been stepped over by others. And with the work being nonverbal, consent – in the form we know it – was completely absent. “
And:
“But this was no match for the industry’s adoration, even if behind closed doors people were less certain of Goode’s vision. “The work was being made for theatre people,” says Hopkins, and nobody in theatre “wants to be the person who says: ‘I didn’t get it.’” ”
And this is particularly horrifying:
“Gilligan learned of Goode’s death on 2nd June. His husband’s 19-page suicide note, he says, “didn’t really accept, or focus on, what harm he had caused”. Instead, Goode wrote about how the charges against him were “going to mess up my work and my legacy”. Regarding the photos and videos that had led to his arrest, his point of view was very clear, says Gilligan: “I see why I’ve been arrested, and I see why I’m being prosecuted for this. Also, I don’t agree with it. And I stand behind these choices. And I think it’s important and beautiful that people make these images and videos.” Goode went on to say he didn’t want this “dissonance” to “get in the way of how people see my work. I think the work itself should still be valued. And that’s why I’m dying.””
Here is the usual declaration of doctrine, which, in an article about abuse and abuser dynamic feels, rather feels like an attempt to be allowed to criticise a member of fashionable society while staying part of it and not being shunned for making the group look bad. It’s making connections about what happened to these young men but trying not to look to far outside accepted mores for explanations for Goode’s behaviour (unlike Jonny Best’s article which analyses the boundary-breaking influence of Queer Theory on the Arts:
”It is worth noting, at this point, that Chris Goode’s legacy contains a dangerous combination of attributes often connected to homosexual men. Political movements looking to whip up homophobic sentiment have incorrectly associated homosexuality with the grooming of minors and paedophilia: we see it in the language of the Third Reich, in Section 28, and even now in the insidious remarks of gender-critical thinkers who accuse drag queens in libraries of being overly sexualised threats to their charges.”
And this, oft repeated, dynamic in organisations where no-one feels they can challenge inappropriate behaviour from someone who is on the rise or has won favour and plaudits and status is such a disappointing part of societies:
”Hopkins found other parts of the industry had been complicit in letting Goode wield so much influence: reviewers were too cosy – “[Ponyboy] wasn’t reviewed by critics, it was reviewed by other artists” – and even if audiences felt uncomfortable, he doesn’t understand why more people didn’t try and challenge what they were seeing on stage. In the years since, Hopkins says multiple people have said “we all knew” about Goode’s abusive behaviours. “And it’s like… well, say something!””