526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Sept 4, 2016 10:06:04 GMT
Quite a lot of local receiving playhouses use volunteer ushers.
Regarding The Globe, what the heck have they done? It's a theatre which is an education in itself about Elizabethan playhouses and audiences going should be able to see plays in this stripped back and non-technical form. The multiple moving lights, clearly complicated grid and racks of speakers just detract from everything the theatre is meant to be about.
I very much doubt I'll return again, they've lost their USP now and I don't see a motivation to go back when there is no end of good Shakespeare elsewhere.
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Sept 4, 2016 10:26:46 GMT
Farewell then
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Sept 4, 2016 19:35:47 GMT
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. I saw Merchant last year as my first seen production having only studied it as school and therefore disliked it and really liked it, for me Jonathan Pryce worked, he was unlikable and yet evoked sympathy and the conversion scene at the end was harrowing, I've booked to see again this year when i'm already at the globe that day. I think it is pretty much the same cast as last year? The only acting i remember not being too fussed about was Antonio and Bassiano, (is that who i mean, the one he borrows the money for). I liked the father/daughter interaction with Phoebe Pryce and her performance in full. Will see how it's travelled when it comes back. |
|
782 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Sept 4, 2016 21:37:40 GMT
Quite a lot of local receiving playhouses use volunteer ushers. Regarding The Globe, what the heck have they done? It's a theatre which is an education in itself about Elizabethan playhouses and audiences going should be able to see plays in this stripped back and non-technical form. The multiple moving lights, clearly complicated grid and racks of speakers just detract from everything the theatre is meant to be about. I very much doubt I'll return again, they've lost their USP now and I don't see a motivation to go back when there is no end of good Shakespeare elsewhere. 100% agree! At last anyone with the same toughts... Modern twist on Shakespeare can be found everywhere you turn - Globe was a treasure for seeing The Bard as if it was performed 400 years ago - in authentic costumes, with traditional practices, etc. Where the feck all that glorious dancing & music bits gone? Sam Wanamaker, Mark Rylance and Dominic Dromgoole spend almost 20 years to built this precious thing and it took a woman and merely 6 months to kill it... I've never been the biggest fan of this theatre- I went there for experience only which is now reduced to load noises through speakers and discoteque-style lights and even my heart aches to see this.
|
|
|
|
The Globe
Sept 4, 2016 21:52:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2016 21:52:42 GMT
JUST as it was 400 years ago - with no women on the stage, no helicopters flying overhead, the playwright on hand to dish out rewrites on the regular, and no knowledge of the intervening 400 years of cultural and historical knowledge and understanding that will have shaped our opinions on the plays as written and as performed.
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Sept 4, 2016 21:58:54 GMT
JUST as it was 400 years ago - with no women on the stage, no helicopters flying overhead, the playwright on hand to dish out rewrites on the regular, and no knowledge of the intervening 400 years of cultural and historical knowledge and understanding that will have shaped our opinions on the plays as written and as performed. Well yes, obviously we can never return to exactly the original style of things (for one thing - the style of acting now is very different). However I don't see the argument of "some things are different anyway" as being a good one to encourage further disparity. At least the experience was pretty similar before Rice started adding in 21st century lighting. |
|
782 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Sept 5, 2016 6:51:54 GMT
JUST as it was 400 years ago - with no women on the stage, no helicopters flying overhead, the playwright on hand to dish out rewrites on the regular, and no knowledge of the intervening 400 years of cultural and historical knowledge and understanding that will have shaped our opinions on the plays as written and as performed. Well let's not talk about things we can do nothing about - like helicopters flying over the head.. and the fact that 400 years ago peeps in the yard weren't paying much attention to the show minding their own... business. Point is - before Rice took charge they were doing their best to preserve the nature and authencity of the performance - it took me a special membership backstage tour with a friend last year to realise ho much effort is put into this.. Best part of THAT team (stage management, etc.) is now gone as well, based on what I've heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 5, 2016 7:04:52 GMT
JUST as it was 400 years ago - with no women on the stage, no helicopters flying overhead, the playwright on hand to dish out rewrites on the regular, and no knowledge of the intervening 400 years of cultural and historical knowledge and understanding that will have shaped our opinions on the plays as written and as performed. Well let's not talk about things we can do nothing about - like helicopters flying over the head.. and the fact that 400 years ago peeps in the yard weren't paying much attention to the show minding their own... business. Point is - before Rice took charge they were doing their best to preserve the nature and authencity of the performance - it took me a special membership backstage tour with a friend last year to realise ho much effort is put into this.. Best part of THAT team (stage management, etc.) is now gone as well, based on what I've heard.
400 years ago Shakespeare's audience saw the plays in modern dress, not costumes from 400 years before. Peter Hall has pointed out the problems of so-called "authentic" performances where the audience have no cultural references to interpret the costumes and props. |
|
782 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Sept 5, 2016 7:23:29 GMT
But the cosumes are not even strictly modern now.. they are random. Better the Elizabethan era dress I can research about (remember that gown Rylance wore in 12th night? Wow!) than a none-particalar-costume which adds nothing to the character.
Okay, if 50s play in staged in period costumes (meaning then and there these outfits were mordern) does that mean you have no reference? To me it looks educational and exciting. And yet AGAIN - every other theatre is doing Shakespeare in modern dress! It's not something British theatre lacks - now The Globe instead of being a special place is turning into an average. I'm afraid the acting is going that way as well...
I fear of what Rice is planning to do with SWP - replace candlelight with neon?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 7:25:14 GMT
If people don't like what Emma Rice is doing and choose to stay away from the Globe because of it, then fair play, there are things I won't go and see either because life's too short and finances too finite to spend time seeing something that experience has taught me I'm not going to enjoy. But the Globe has never been truly authentic, and to announce a boycott on authenticity grounds, rather than just not liking it right now, reminds me of when I was a child and wanted to stop going to Brownies, so I told my parents some really convoluted excuse about how the Brownie pledge said we were meant to learn about God and I just felt the whole thing was too secular.
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Sept 5, 2016 7:56:28 GMT
Exciting. Dream live from Globe on Sunday night on BBC streaming.Will then be available on I player Shakespeare's Livrs.
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Sept 5, 2016 10:57:48 GMT
Oh good! I saw the announcement and am unfortunately away Sunday. Really looking forward to this on iPlayer. (Unless I can find good enough train wifi?)
|
|
24 posts
|
Post by nobunaga on Sept 10, 2016 14:53:53 GMT
If people don't like what Emma Rice is doing and choose to stay away from the Globe because of it, then fair play, there are things I won't go and see either because life's too short and finances too finite to spend time seeing something that experience has taught me I'm not going to enjoy. But the Globe has never been truly authentic, and to announce a boycott on authenticity grounds, rather than just not liking it right now, reminds me of when I was a child and wanted to stop going to Brownies, so I told my parents some really convoluted excuse about how the Brownie pledge said we were meant to learn about God and I just felt the whole thing was too secular. Boycotts are often counterprodutive-personally as much as I dispise what has been done to the Globe I will still go next year:I usually buy 25 or so tickets a year and would expect to see (subject to being on call ) about 95%.Next year I will go to the matinees (to avoid the lights) and subject to wifely approvial (she gets grumpy if I go to many times) will book 8 ie each play twice.I still want to see the Globe to be sucessful-there will be a time when Rice leaves and I want to see the Globe as sucessful then as now. One point about authenticty-part of the problem is in the name-"shakespeares globe" seems to have a implict assumtion that (say) "Wannamakers Globe" or "London Globe" does not have-so when somebody buys a ticket they may expect to see a play as shakespeare wrote/performed it-which is not always the case. I had a quick look at the Globe Website and there appears in the "about" section no claims to be authentic which given the current light and sound system is probably to avoid been prosecuted unter the trades desciption act :-) One bit of good news-I was in the Globe shop yesterday-the DVD for the pryce merchant of venice,the Edwards Richard II and the measure for Measure are now on sale. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2016 16:44:16 GMT
I still want to see the Globe to be sucessful-there will be a time when Rice leaves and I want to see the Globe as sucessful then as now. For Shakespeare's Globe to be truly authentic, it should have burnt down by now, so I presume you wish it to be destroyed by fire asap? Perhaps the wiring of the lights will spark, so you can then after all be pleased they were installed? |
|
24 posts
|
Post by nobunaga on Sept 11, 2016 14:23:54 GMT
NO-Thats the one thing I definaly don't want to see:in any case the Globe has a rather good sprinkler system..
In any case why would want to see something I am quite fond of destroyed? That would be like "cutting off my
nose to spite my face"-just as stupid as a Boycott.
What I am keen to do is to try to understand what Rice's (and her management) aims are-what was she trying to do with this
sound and light system:dispite various attemps all I (and other people) have heard is silence.
|
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Sept 11, 2016 18:46:41 GMT
Quite a lot of local receiving playhouses use volunteer ushers. Regarding The Globe, what the heck have they done? It's a theatre which is an education in itself about Elizabethan playhouses and audiences going should be able to see plays in this stripped back and non-technical form. The multiple moving lights, clearly complicated grid and racks of speakers just detract from everything the theatre is meant to be about. I very much doubt I'll return again, they've lost their USP now and I don't see a motivation to go back when there is no end of good Shakespeare elsewhere. 100% agree! At last anyone with the same toughts... Modern twist on Shakespeare can be found everywhere you turn - Globe was a treasure for seeing The Bard as if it was performed 400 years ago - in authentic costumes, with traditional practices, etc. Where the feck all that glorious dancing & music bits gone? Sam Wanamaker, Mark Rylance and Dominic Dromgoole spend almost 20 years to built this precious thing and it took a woman and merely 6 months to kill it... I've never been the biggest fan of this theatre- I went there for experience only which is now reduced to load noises through speakers and discoteque-style lights and even my heart aches to see this.
It has never been the slightest bit authentic. If the plays were performed in a way Shakespeare would have recognised, female parts would have been played by teenage boys, not adult me |
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Sept 11, 2016 19:51:32 GMT
Dream is getting great response.Of course,this must return in a future season....if not next year.The festival atmosphere amongst huge audiences is a thing of wonder.This is theatre that everyone can love ...rock the ground.
|
|
782 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Sept 11, 2016 21:39:46 GMT
The Globe re-tweets only the positive responses obviously... But some people ARE disappointed. Nobody's gonna count that though...
|
|
24 posts
|
Post by nobunaga on Sept 11, 2016 21:58:42 GMT
Dream is getting great response.Of course,this must return in a future season....if not next year.The festival atmosphere amongst huge audiences is a thing of wonder.This is theatre that everyone can love ...rock the ground. |
|
2 posts
|
Post by kate on Sept 28, 2016 10:00:53 GMT
Review of the 2016 Shakespeare's Globe Macbeth
I tried to publish this review on the Shakespeare's Globe website Monday 19th September. It was immediately put "under moderation'' and is still waiting to be published.
I’m sixteen years old and have seen several versions of Macbeth. This one was my least favourite.
It was played as a comedy, which I don’t feel worked with the script at all.
If King Duncan is a clown, why do most of his thanes rally round him during the invasion?
Maduff shouldn’t be shouting ‘join in audience!’ in the scene where he’s told his wife and children have been murdered.
The porter scene was very well done, but it’s purpose had been taken away because there was no tension surrounding the murder of the king. Instead, people are laughing at Macbeth, on his way to commit regicide, shouting “Hear it not, Duncan.’’ Then later in the play, it’s impossible to hear Macbeth talking because people are laughing at the child waving his arms.
I felt the child just distracted attention from the main action without adding anything to the interpretation of the play. Having the child is one way of making sense of Lady Macbeth’s line, but it weakens Macbeth’s reason for wanting to kill Banquo and Fleance.
The whole play was a bit like that; full of ideas that don’t work together or don‘t work at all. It’s the kind of thing I would expect from an amateur production.
The witches make a good example of this. First, there are four witches in this version. Why? Three is a number that can’t divide equally, in this context it can be seen as an inversion of the catholic holy trinity, or a reference to the three Fates. Three witches also happen to be how the play was written. Then someone sang the witches’ lines for them, and it was blasted out though the amplified sound system. That destroyed any sense of interaction between the weird sisters and Macbeth. It also made the words harder to understand. I didn’t like the way the lines were cut to fit into the song; it diminished the presence of the witches. I quite liked the puppets, but the idea wasn’t continued, and it went downhill from there. The apparitions looked like a kid’s Halloween party, complete with foam bats. Banquo’s ghost would have made a good apparition, but instead it was used to block the view of Macbeth and the thanes in the banquet scene. At this point we could have been shown the reactions of Macbeth and the thanes, which I personally think is more important than having an impressive ghost. I found that this production seemed to prefer having an eye-catching show regardless of whether enough thought had been put behind it. The set included a lot of black metal things which didn’t have any role in the performance. No one even banged a sword against them. On the whole I found the set and costumes disappointing.
I would have liked to see some sort of visual recognition that the Globe is a replica Elizabethan theatre. The Globe is a unique and wonderful place to see plays; I don’t want it to pretend the space is like that of a more mainstream theatre.
A lot of skilled people worked on this Macbeth and it shouldn’t have gone so wrong.
I think the actors were miscast; Lady Macbeth’s weak stage presence was made worse by Macbeth’s shouting, and casting a brilliant comic actor as King Duncan doesn’t work. This production left me with the feeling that it was inconsistent, badly thought out and made with a disregard for the script and the theatre space.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2016 11:20:37 GMT
Yikes, if you thought *this* one was played as comedy, I can only assume you missed the version Eve Best directed a couple of years back!  I too have seen several productions of Macbeth, and I am always happy to see a production that tries different things. I appreciate that not every new idea will work - I wasn't a big fan of the recent production at the Young Vic that replaced a lot of the dialogue with modern dance, for instance, though I will give it points for cutting the tedious porter scene down! - but it's one of the great things about theatre and Shakespeare and particularly a popular work like Macbeth that we do have so many productions that are all able to try new things without fear that people will write off the play for life. If only we had so many, say, productions of Pericles willing to try new things! There isn't one, correct way to do Shakespeare - if there was, we'd get bored pretty quickly. But just because something didn't work for someone doesn't mean they've done it "wrong". Also, please don't use "amateur" as a pejorative, there are truly wonderful amateur productions out there, just as there are truly awful professional productions. Plus an amateur production is way less likely (though obviously there are some that do) to experiment and innovate, in my experience. |
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 28, 2016 11:55:07 GMT
Er, yikes again. Great review ( I wonder if the Globe will publish it on its website as it is somewhat critical ) but is this really what they have done with Macbeth.? For starters they should be scolded for misleading the young. Macbeth is on the GCSE syllabus and if this is the only Shakespeare production some people will ever encounter then what a terrible shame and secondly well, I'm aghast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2016 12:05:01 GMT
To be fair, kate's review is balanced. She doesn't go in for the kill - she states there are some elements she liked, it's just that they were outweighed by the ones she didn't.
I think in this case she's entirely entitled to say it 'went wrong' - it's just her opinion, after all, and is clearly honestly held and supported by a strong argument.
I understand Baemax taking exception to 'amateur' but again, in this situation, I reckon it's fine - I'd expect a Shakespearean production at the Globe to be professional x10, and clearly kate feels this one wasn't. So if it's not professional, the natural acting-related adjective you'd use is amateur, surely?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2016 13:10:05 GMT
I appreciate that not every new idea will work - I wasn't a big fan of the recent production at the Young Vic that replaced a lot of the dialogue with modern dance That was seriously mad, 3 separate concepts in a single play. Still not really forgiven Ms C for it. I must admit (my admiration of The Heff aside), I really liked the Young Vic one. Nice and zippy and I thought the dancing strangely made it a bit more disturbing. Also, to be fair with the Globe I always go into it expecting comedy, no matter the play. I reckon they could stage 'Schindler's List' and manage to find a fair few laughs in it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2016 13:15:37 GMT
It's audience expectations combined with house style I reckon. Audiences are always keen to laugh no matter how appropriate (I've definitely come across it in all sorts of theatres, including the West End and the National), I've always presumed because they've considered how much they've paid for their ticket and have decided they are GOING to have a JOLLY GOOD TIME, and laughing too much is a fairly simple way to go about demonstrating that. But yeah, the Globe will always find the laughs. Which isn't always *that* inappropriate actually, not even in a tragedy. Plays like Romeo & Juliet are very much in the romcom mould, until people start dying, and Hamlet's got some fairly good jokes. Plus laughter is a good way to get audiences onside with liking a character, and if you don't like anyone on the stage at all, then why are you supposed to care when the tragedy kicks in? I feel like Shakespeare really gets that, and a funny production of a tragedy feels far truer than a completely po-faced one.
|
|
