The Globe

[lynette]

Can I ask qs re the new regime at the Globe? I haven't booked for this year. I was late out of the blocks and as I'm so choosy re seats I didn't bother. But I see that Kneehigh is there. Is that making the Globe just a house to receive other companies? Is that ok? And what is the new decor like? Nice? Or silly? There was so much negative stuff about not liking Shakespeare that I wonder how it is all panning out. 

[RedRose]

I've only been for Macbeth this year and I didn't like the decor. The stage was looking cheap. Especially with the lights on.

[bee]

I'm unhappy about it all really. I had a Best Friend membership which I haven't renewed. I went to Midsummer Night's Dream, which to me was a complete car crash. Macbeth was better but still pretty mediocre. I had a ticket for Taming of the Shrew but didn't bother going.

In past years I've gone to 5 or 6 productions every season at The Globe, and since the SWP opened, maybe another 2 or 3 there as well. I can't see me doing that in the immediate future. I liked the idea of The Globe, the fact that they did they plays in (more or less) Elizabethan dress made it unique. It's now just another theatre where they do Shakespeare in modern dress.

[profquatermass]

I was genuinely baffled by the negativity towards the Dream. I thought it was riotous fun and the female Globe volunteer mechanicals were great. The Shrew was as good a production as you ever get (it's such a horrible play). And Kneehigh's presence is surely unsurprising and I'd have thought they'd be a company well-suited to the theatre.

[lynette]

I've booked for the Sam Wanamaker Autumn/Winter season. So jury still out on Globe.

[bee]

Aug 2, 2016 20:21:40 GMT profquatermass said:

I was genuinely baffled by the negativity towards the Dream. I thought it was riotous fun and the female Globe volunteer mechanicals were great. The Shrew was as good a production as you ever get (it's such a horrible play). And Kneehigh's presence is surely unsurprising and I'd have thought they'd be a company well-suited to the theatre.

I think Dream was in general well received. It got good reviews, and from what I remember most people on here seemed to like it. Just not my cup of tea really.

I'm not against modern dress productions as such - for example I actually rather enjoyed the recent rubber-doll-fest Measure for Measure at the Young Vic - but somehow at The Globe it just seems all wrong.

[Jan]

Aug 2, 2016 13:28:09 GMT lynette said:

Can I ask qs re the new regime at the Globe? I haven't booked for this year. I was late out of the blocks and as I'm so choosy re seats I didn't bother. But I see that Kneehigh is there. Is that making the Globe just a house to receive other companies? Is that ok? And what is the new decor like? Nice? Or silly? There was so much negative stuff about not liking Shakespeare that I wonder how it is all panning out. 

It is not really Kneehigh is it ? Just the former Kneehigh director has taken over. Just as Hampstead is not Propellor. It is a bold choice to pick someone who constantly says she doesn't like or understand much of Shakespeare as written. However, as someone who has hated all previous regimes at the Globe it may be a change for the better. Her Dream sounded like the first thing that interested me there for ages and I only didn't see it because I've seen the play twice already this year. The Wannamaker Playhouse prices are so high I never go.

[Deleted]

Kneehigh toured The Flying Lovers of Vitebsk to the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse last month and are this month touring 946: The Amazing Story of Adolphus Tipps to Shakespeare's Globe. Kneehigh is now an Associate Company at Shakespeare's Globe.

[Deleted]

I saw a midsummer nights dream and really enjoyed it. I can see why people do not like Emma Rices new style as when you go to the globe you expect a classic show but that is why I enjoyed AMND as it was different and really fun. I don't think people should making such a fuss about her style as it is brining new people like me to the globe and making Shakespeare much more interesting.

[Jan]

Aug 6, 2016 14:55:04 GMT @robadog said:

I saw a midsummer nights dream and really enjoyed it. I can see why people do not like Emma Rices new style as when you go to the globe you expect a classic show but that is why I enjoyed AMND as it was different and really fun. I don't think people should making such a fuss about her style as it is brining new people like me to the globe and making Shakespeare much more interesting.

Strangely the Globe was really the ONLY place you could see a "classic" show in 17th century period costume and so on. No great loss if that option has gone I agree. You should try a few more Shakespeare productions in other theatres, you'll find some equally as entertaining.

[nobunaga]

Some comments on this board have expressed bafflement over why the Globes new production of a midsummer’s night dream has provoked quite a hostile reaction: let me proffer a couple of points to help clarify the situation.

First is what Emma Rice has physically done to the theatre and the implications of those changes- what Rice has done is taken an Elizabethan Theatre and effectively tried to modernise it-thus removing in one stoke its purpose: to produce plays in as authentic an environment as possible( also to be honest the new lights around the upper gallery give the theatre a feel of being in a film set rather than a theatre). I always enjoyed seeing how a director would rise to the challenge of setting a play in the Globe without the use of lights etc. (take a look at Titus Andronicus I loved the use of the black sheets) and some of the plays have been ingenious-but now what particular challenge has been removed which is a shame. By removing the challenges of the Globe stage you end up with plays which are less interesting to watch-the creative tension between the old and the new is removed (or at least reduced). I like seeing directors push the limits of what the Elizabethan stage physically and emotionally can do- but within the physical limits of the Elizabethan stage: once you change those physical boundaries it ceases to be a Elizabethan stage.
There is also a potential danger to the Globe-why come to the Globe when you can see the same production in a modern theatre with more comfortable seats? You will be trying to complete with more modern theatres which have better technical facilities than something bolted on ad hoc.
The lights themselves I found physically uncomfortable –I saw shrew three times:the first two I had to leave in the interval as the lights gave me a headache and in the third I waited until the interval to enter the theatre to watch the second half. I happen to be Dyslexic so my eyes can be a bit sensitive-but this is the first time in a theatre that this has happened to me.

The sound system is also a bit of a disaster-apart from the odd jet and Chinook helicopters I have never had too much trouble hearing-even when sat in the back of the middle Gallery (normally I stand).The new sound system I found affected the clarity of the lines so it is rather
harder to hear rather than clearer.

Second the changes made have at best reduced, at worse, destroyed the unique connection between audience and players- the Globe is now just another theatre with the actors in the light and the audience in the dark: the point of the Globe which was to create the Elizabethan stage and experiment within those limits-in essence not to move forward but to move back and rediscover the maqic of the first proper theatre. Sadly the changes made have destroyed that magic.
Now let me make it clear that I am not a “purist” :I liked the mix of traditional and modern plays that have been on previously, ideally they should have a 50-50 split each season so everybody is at least equally unhappy.. I normally have tickets to about 25 shows over the season and will see (depending on on-call rotas etc) about 20-22:I always try so see the non-Shakespeare plays so I don’t think that
A) I am closed minded
B) A Snob

It is also my sixteen season so I hope that I try to be as broadminded as I can be.
To be honest I was so shocked with what Emma Rice had done I left at the interval but in a week or two I will see MSND for a second time: count these as first impressions. I went during the first week of the run.

I have seen Dromgoole’s production and the previous one before that (which was also a modern style) both highly enjoyable-this time however the play felt overladen with spurious gags which broke the flow of the action. Meow-meow is outstanding-the other actors seemed esp. oberon underpowered and at times inaudible. I have no real problems with directors changing texts but some of the changes made no sense to me- I still have no idea what a hoxton hipster is/was/may be.
In short-put this play on in small/medium size indoor theatre and it will be blast and call it an adaptation (because that it really what it is) for honesties sake.
One final point regarding Emma Rice herself-I don’t blame her for what she has done- she was probably given a brief to shake things up and try to attract a new younger audience and to be fair she has done the first very well-the second remains to be seen..

[Marwood]

A quick question, if I find the seating really uncomfortable: if I ask nicely, would I be able to go into standing instead (obviously depending how many people have booked tickets in there)?

[Deleted]

Probably not, it's a small theatre and all the standing spaces are assigned. It also gets quite warm on the upper levels so the last thing anyone would want would be to squeeze up closer to their neighbours. If there were already spaces to begin with, you might be able to, but if the spaces are all sold and occupied, then it would be uncomfortable and awkward for everyone. Also there's no way to know at the moment if the stewards are likely to be understanding or total jobsworths! (Unless you offered to swap with one of the standers, I suppose, rather than just join them, but I wouldn't recommend it, 'cos visibility is dire from the Upper Gallery...)

WAIT I assumed for some silly reason you were asking about the Sam Wanamaker! If you're referring to the Globe, it's unlikely anyone will check if you sneak into the yard at the interval, or if you've booked in one of the floor-level seating areas then simply just don't go all the way to your seat! There's a lot of new stewards going on at the moment, so I couldn't say if they're likely to be flexible if you specifically ask them, and I can't guarantee they'll let your ticket go unchecked, but it's usually possible to move yourself unobtrusively.

[David J]

I agree that the use of lighting and speaks takes away the challenge for directors. It makes me concerned what Emma Rice has in mind for the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse, though I cant begin to imagine where you can hang up lights and speakers in that place.

But the Playhouse has only been around for 2 years(?) and I've already seen some of the most imaginative productions in there that takes advantage of the limited use of lighting and sound

As for Globe, ideally I'd like Emma Rice to do seasons where there's a mix of traditional and non traditional productions

[Marwood]

Thanks Baemax, it was indeed the Glove I was asking about, I've been in the Sam Wanamaker and there's no way you could just wander into somewhere you hadn't booked for - when I booked to see Macbeth in a few weeks time , I wasn't keen on the idea of standing for three hours (I am probably one of the few people that goes to football matches that doesn't miss standing on terraces whatsoever) but reading people describing the seating in the Globe as uncomfortable has been playing on my mind ever since.

[lynette]

I suppose in the end it come down to takings. If they fall, we will know why. But there are always the tourists.

[Jan]

Aug 8, 2016 10:56:31 GMT @baemax said:

Probably not, it's a small theatre and all the standing spaces are assigned. It also gets quite warm on the upper levels so the last thing anyone would want would be to squeeze up closer to their neighbours. If there were already spaces to begin with, you might be able to, but if the spaces are all sold and occupied, then it would be uncomfortable and awkward for everyone. Also there's no way to know at the moment if the stewards are likely to be understanding or total jobsworths! (Unless you offered to swap with one of the standers, I suppose, rather than just join them, but I wouldn't recommend it, 'cos visibility is dire from the Upper Gallery...)

WAIT I assumed for some silly reason you were asking about the Sam Wanamaker! If you're referring to the Globe, it's unlikely anyone will check if you sneak into the yard at the interval, or if you've booked in one of the floor-level seating areas then simply just don't go all the way to your seat! There's a lot of new stewards going on at the moment, so I couldn't say if they're likely to be flexible if you specifically ask them, and I can't guarantee they'll let your ticket go unchecked, but it's usually possible to move yourself unobtrusively.

The stewards there are volunteers and get paid nothing. What do we think about that ? Slave labour at less than minimum wage ? What other commercial theatre gets away with that ? Given the political views of the directorate how can they possibly justify it ?

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2016 19:43:52 GMT Jan said:

The stewards there are volunteers and get paid nothing. What do we think about that ? Slave labour at less than minimum wage ? What other commercial theatre gets away with that ? Given the political views of the directorate how can they possibly justify it ?

Shakespeare's Globe is an educational charity, The Shakespeare's Globe Trust. It's a not-for-profit organisation, so not "commercial". The volunteer stewards are donating their time and expertise to Shakespeare's Globe. The directorate obviously supports the volunteer stewards' charitable activities, as the directorate works for and on behalf of the charity. Many theatres have volunteer stewards!

[Jan]

Just out of interest which other theatres have volunteer stewards ?

I don't really see why if they have volunteer stewards they shouldn't have volunteer supporting actors too who get paid nothing but gain from the exposure. As they would be volunteering for charity it shouldn't be a problem.

[Deleted]

Here in Cardiff, for example, the Sherman Theatre, Chapter and The Other Room all have volunteer stewards. In all three cases, they are keen to encourage access and participation.

Actors wouldn't be free to do other paid work while they were doing unpaid work, whereas stewarding can be scheduled around paid work or is done by people not seeking paid work such as the retired.

Someone will know the circumstances in which the acting union's minimum contract terms are mandatory for theatres. These are intended to protect actors from professional exploitation.

There have recently been a small but increasing number of productions where the union has permitted an unpaid supporting community cast, but the theatres have always been required to satisfy the union that the roles would not otherwise have been cast with professional actors. Recently, you may recall We're Here Because We're Here, for example.

[partytentdown]

Theatres I know of with volunteer ushers in/around London: Southwark Playhouse, Rose Kingston, The Gate, The Bush, Waterloo East, London Theatre Workshop, Greenwich Theatre, Park Theatre...

[cirque]

always found Globe stewards very enthusiastic and clearly loving being part of the environment.You know,sometimes,its good to have a volunteer with built in passion for their theatre working with audiences-especially if they are new to the place.Theatres up and down the land need the volunteer core to transmit their passion and dedication.

[sondheimhats]

Anyone see 946 yet? I saw it last night and found it delightful and moving. I admit, it took me a while to get into it; I found the first half-hour or so to be a bit tough, but it really picked up after that, and in the end I loved it. I thoroughly enjoyed Kneehigh's production of Tristan and Yseult when I saw it in New York, and I was curious to see another of their productions.

I also see they're bringing back The Merchant of Venice with Jonathan Pryce. I saw it in New York and was generally unimpressed by the production, and disappointed somewhat by Pryce's performance - it wasn't bad, by any means, but could have been a lot more, knowing how capable of an actor Pryce is. Having said that, I imagine the production would probably work much better at The Globe than the venue it played in New York (a large theatre at Lincoln Center built for Jazz concerts - totally wrong for Shakespeare, despite somewhat ironically being called "The Rose"). Did anyone here see this production? Anyone planning to see it in its upcoming return engagement?

I'd be very curious to hear what people think of Merchant, as well as 946. I'm also seeing Midsummer next week with my class and very intrigued by this production.

[cirque]

You should love Dream...it's a fresh new declaration of intent from Globe and literally raises the non existent roof.Not to all tastes but reinvents the play in such a compelling style.A few unnecessary moments but little to grumble about in a show that seems as though you are seeing play for first time.I think the Emma Rice regime had made a great start and impact. Always hard to follow Dominic so the newcomers give a whole fresh and new broom approach.Lightiing and sound a bonus....of course if WS himself were here he would be using it all the time.The Globe remains,perhaps even more so,an arena of excitement,experiment and contact that many other theatres must envy.

The decision to bring Kneehigh in as Associates really paying off.

[Deleted]

I also really loved 946 The Amazing Story of Adolphus Tips last week (and A Midsummer Night's Dream earlier in the summer). In fact, they are probably my two favourite theatre shows of the last year, and both seen standing in the yard. I only went to Tips at the last minute - I hadn't particularly wanted to see a family show - but I felt it works just as well for adults as for children. And of course the young children in the yard could see virtually none of it anyway, due to their height, so it didn't do much at all for them.

Certainly, Tips is the show where I cried the most and the longest, but I beamed with joy through much of it too. Katy Owen is fantastic in the principal role, as she is as Puck in Dream and was as the junior footman in Rebecca. But everyone and everything else is so excellent too.