Globe All Seasons

[ThereWillBeSun]

It gives me the ick Michelle Terry casting herself in roles. Once ... just about OK. But it's boring. Give other people opportunities and stop being narcissistic... I really struggle! She just needs to focus on being AD. End.

For me it's Shrew and Much Ado that appeal the most so will be booking!

[Someone in a tree]

Im getting impression its ok for an AD to direct but not to star ?

[Being Alive]

Yeah I'm not sure what the difference is here with her acting instead of directing.

She's an actor, so rather than directing a show a year, she stars in one. Would we be having the conversation if she was directing shows on a yearly basis?

[princeton]

Presumably in her application for the job she made it clear that she intended to act rather than direct. Certainly in her first press interviews after her appointment was announced she said "I'm not going to direct [any plays], so nobody needs to worry about that, I think it's a skill that I don't have, I think it's a particular skill, and my passion is acting" and that she would appear in one production per season.

I don't remember similar criticism being levelled at Mark Rylance and I'm pretty sure he acted in one production per season as well as directing.

Dan Evans is appearing rather than directing in his first season at the RSC and I don't think he's acted in a stage production (other than as an emergency cover) for more than 10 years.

[oxfordsimon]

Jan 25, 2024 20:14:04 GMT Being Alive said:

Yeah I'm not sure what the difference is here with her acting instead of directing.

She's an actor, so rather than directing a show a year, she stars in one. Would we be having the conversation if she was directing shows on a yearly basis?

If that was depriving others of that opportunity, I would say so.

If you are AD, that it your primary focus. Directing or acting should happen only very occasionally.

[Being Alive]

I don't get this as an argument though?

Rupert Goold directs every year at the Almeida at least once a year (in 2023 he directed twice).
Michael Longhurst directed once if not twice every year that he was AD at the Donmar.

Are we saying ADs, who are directors first and foremost, should not direct when they run a building?
And by association Michelle Terry, as an actor, shouldn't act whilst being an AD?
Because that essentially goes against the way theatres have always been run?! Sorry I'm aware we're going off topic, km just utterly perplexed at this as a take.

[joem]

Jan 24, 2024 23:17:23 GMT oxfordsimon said:

I see there is some online upset over Terry's casting as Richard III because she does not have lived experience of disability.

I know this is something we have debated a number of times. But the Globe should have been out in front of this one.

They have a pretty decent record in terms of casting inclusivity so should have been aware of the likelihood of a backlash.

Speaking personally I don't believe that this particular role should now only be cast with a disabled actor. The character is much more than a medical condition or physical challenge.

But I suspect major companies will need to explain their casting better in the future.

I don't think Terry is right for the role but that is nothing to do with disability. It is not great optics when the AD casts herself in this way.

She does not have lived experience of manhood either but no-one's complaining.

There is little historical evidence of Richard actually being disabled other than perhaps one shoulder being slightly higher than the other. He had a fearsome reputation as a fighter and given the type of fighting practised in those days plus the armour they war a significantly disabled person would simply have been unable to participate in serious fighting.

The idea if Richard being "disabled" is allied to his being labelled as "deformed" and a hunchback and is basically a Shakespearean slur on him because, let's not forget, Richard was the mortal enemy of the Bard's queen's grandfather. 

In any case surely if it is strict veracity what is required then the disability of the actor playing Richard should be the specific disability the fictional Richard was supposed to have. It would not be enough to have an actor missing, for example, a limb to play the part as he would not have lived experience of the type of disability which (the fictional) Richard suffered from.

[lynette]

Can someone enlighten me as to the bilingual prod of A&C? Would that be Egyptian and Latin? What with the Ukrainian Lear in Stratford we might find languages becoming more popular in schools.

[lynette]

Ps so you can’t perform a part of which you have no actual experience in real life? Gonna be v difficult to find an actor who is a murdering bastard and possibly disabled who isn’t either in prison or on the run?

[ThereWillBeSun]

Jan 25, 2024 22:56:18 GMT oxfordsimon said:

Jan 25, 2024 20:14:04 GMT Being Alive said:

Yeah I'm not sure what the difference is here with her acting instead of directing.

She's an actor, so rather than directing a show a year, she stars in one. Would we be having the conversation if she was directing shows on a yearly basis?

If that was depriving others of that opportunity, I would say so.

If you are AD, that it your primary focus. Directing or acting should happen only very occasionally.

I just think it's a conflict of interest. Focus on running the building. I'd never heard of Michelle Terry until they were announced as AD.

I have an actor background and would not feel comfortable being an AD and then starting in a production that I've commissioned. Just doesn't sit right with me, but that's just my opinion. I've not seen her onstage nor do I know Richard III - but how about she opens up the platform for other talents?

[c4ndyc4ne]

Jan 25, 2024 23:58:51 GMT lynette said:

Can someone enlighten me as to the bilingual prod of A&C? Would that be Egyptian and Latin? What with the Ukrainian Lear in Stratford we might find languages becoming more popular in schools.

English and BSL

[MrBunbury]

I find the argument rather preposterous. Laurence Olivier and Kevin Spacey acted in productions during their tenure and Terry, who is an excellent actress, has stated from the beginning that she would star in a production each season. In terms of casting someone with disability, I would actually praise the choice of giving the part of Cleopatra to Nadia Nadarajah who was excellent as Celia.

[Latecomer]

Jan 26, 2024 0:16:48 GMT ThereWillBeSun said:

Jan 25, 2024 22:56:18 GMT oxfordsimon said:

If that was depriving others of that opportunity, I would say so.

If you are AD, that it your primary focus. Directing or acting should happen only very occasionally.

I just think it's a conflict of interest. Focus on running the building. I'd never heard of Michelle Terry until they were announced as AD.

I have an actor background and would not feel comfortable being an AD and then starting in a production that I've commissioned. Just doesn't sit right with me, but that's just my opinion. I've not seen her onstage nor do I know Richard III - but how about she opens up the platform for other talents?

I had heard of Michelle Terry and she had an excellent reputation as an actor already, before she was AD at the Globe. They are lucky to have her. 

[zahidf]

Issue not going away

[oxfordsimon]

I have huge sympathy for their position but it is predicated on one interpretation of the script and character. And on the idea that an actor must have lived experience of a particular characteristic in order to portray it on stage or screen.

Whilst I often much prefer to see gay actors play gay characters, I would never seek to insist on that.

Acting is not being. And it never should be.

I do not view having any physical disability to be a qualification to play Richard III. There isn't an actor alive today who can truly know what living with a severe form of scoliosis in 15th century Britain would have been like for a man born into the nobility.

We do, however, know that the historical Richard was a formidable warrior. We know that the historical image of him was created by Tudor propagandists and amplified by Shakespeare.

There is certainly a view that says physical disability is an integral part of the play. There are absolutely other perspectives on the character that can be theatrically interesting to explore.

There is space for both approaches (and many more)

But at heart of this is the fact that acting is acting.

[aspieandy]

Aspie question: are we sure she is playing him with a severe physical disability?

[David J]

What I find laughable is that when you advocate for inclusion and representation for so long, eventually you want to do something that upsets a group of people you’ve been advocating for

The Globe Theatre encountered this with I, Joan from women who see Joan as a figure head for them. And now they’re getting it from disabled people who believe a character should only be played by them.

Lesson: you’re not going to please everybody. And companies out there are starting to wake up to that.

[zahidf]

Jan 31, 2024 1:03:54 GMT oxfordsimon said:

I have huge sympathy for their position but it is predicated on one interpretation of the script and character. And on the idea that an actor must have lived experience of a particular characteristic in order to portray it on stage or screen.

Whilst I often much prefer to see gay actors play gay characters, I would never seek to insist on that.

Acting is not being. And it never should be.

I do not view having any physical disability to be a qualification to play Richard III. There isn't an actor alive today who can truly know what living with a severe form of scoliosis in 15th century Britain would have been like for a man born into the nobility.

We do, however, know that the historical Richard was a formidable warrior. We know that the historical image of him was created by Tudor propagandists and amplified by Shakespeare.

There is certainly a view that says physical disability is an integral part of the play. There are absolutely other perspectives on the character that can be theatrically interesting to explore.

There is space for both approaches (and many more)

But at heart of this is the fact that acting is acting.

I agree with that in a perfect world, i wish it could be the case

But i think the problem they feel is that they are locked out of so many able bodied roles, that to see one role with a disability in it also is excluded to them

[oxfordsimon]

Looking at the recent production history, actors with a disability have been cast as Richard on at least three occasions in the past couple of years or so.

So it is not right to say that disabled actors are being excluded from the role in professional theatre in the UK.

It is right to fight for representation and visibility.

But seeking to limit casting is not the right way to go about it.

[Ranger]

Jan 25, 2024 14:13:41 GMT Dave B said:

Richard III getting some negative coverage

www.theguardian.com/stage/2024/jan/25/shakespeares-globe-criticised-for-casting-able-bodied-actor-as-richard-iii-michelle-terry

 No one is demanding that the actor playing Richard III have scoliosis, just a disability. The argument for "lived experience" seems to be that it doesn't matter what kind of disability you have as long as it's a disability.

It's entirely plausible that the AD Terry has a disability that we simply cannot see (i.e. some form of mental condition that is classified as a disability). I'd expect the disgruntled to recognize that. 

I think the perception of an AD casting herself in a role varies depending on the theatre. In a small theatre, it could be an important cost savings. In high profile, well-funded theatre, I'd prefer to see the work go to someone other than the AD. 

[zahidf]

Globe response. Seems reasonable to me. Won't be playing Richard as disabled

[oxfordsimon]

This is what should have been ready immediately the casting was announced. They got a predictable and understandable response.

Personally that statement is full of self important buzz speak that sounds impressive but is fundamentally empty of any real meaning.

The important bit is the intention not to play the character with a physical disability. The rest is just noise.

It is important that they have stood up and finally made clear their intentions and are not bowing to external pressure.

It is also right that they have been subject to scrutiny.

They should have done better from the outset.

[aspieandy]

Hurumph!

I got it, and I'm not even normal.

Second aspie view: is this 'new media' rush to judgement something mature adults should be participating in.

Jan 31, 2024 2:07:54 GMT aspieandy said:

Aspie question: are we sure she is playing him with a severe physical disability?

[happysooz2]

Jan 31, 2024 12:35:21 GMT aspieandy said:

Hurumph!

I got it, and I'm not even normal.

Second aspie view: is this 'new media' rush to judgement something mature adults should be participating in.

Jan 31, 2024 2:07:54 GMT aspieandy said:

Aspie question: are we sure she is playing him with a severe physical disability?

I think the saying these days is ‘For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And a social media overreaction.’

[happysooz2]

Jan 31, 2024 11:31:00 GMT oxfordsimon said:

Looking at the recent production history, actors with a disability have been cast as Richard on at least three occasions in the past couple of years or so.

So it is not right to say that disabled actors are being excluded from the role in professional theatre in the UK.

It is right to fight for representation and visibility.

But seeking to limit casting is not the right way to go about it.

Strongly agree that limiting casting is the wrong way to go about things. The focus on one role feels like arguing over scraps. Energy would be better spent finding ways for people with disabilities to play Hamlet, Lear, Malvolio, Juliet etc.