782 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Sept 28, 2016 14:40:46 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. Please keep us posted whether they upload your review. It seems they are trying to turn blind eye on all those dissapointed in the new turn The Globe took and trying to pretend everybody's happy. They ignore every critical tweet after Midsummer Might's Dream broadcast. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2016 15:04:13 GMT
Eh, it looks more to me like they've just not hit the "okay, publish" button on the Macbeth comments page for a while, there's nothing in there for the last few weeks. There's still plenty of disgruntled comments from before that time though, if you're genuinely concerned by the possibility of conspiracy.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2016 15:04:48 GMT
They either ignore or they respond with First year since 2008 I've seen nothing in the Globe over the summer, which at least has saved me money and back pain  Got nothing against radical interpretations of Shakespeare (booked for Midsummer Night's Dream at the Young Vic this morning in fact) and stretching the boundaries of the Globe is also fine with me (eg the Lucy Bailey Titus), but the current changes just turn it into just another theatre, so no point suffering the discomfort. |
|
4,154 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 28, 2016 15:55:47 GMT
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Sept 28, 2016 20:18:28 GMT
Welcome Kate and good review, I haven't seen this production to comment (and am quite glad from what i've read) but your review rather makes me feel like I have so thanks.
|
|
20 posts
|
Post by grit on Sept 29, 2016 8:59:44 GMT
Eh, it looks more to me like they've just not hit the "okay, publish" button on the Macbeth comments page for a while, there's nothing in there for the last few weeks. There's still plenty of disgruntled comments from before that time though, if you're genuinely concerned by the possibility of conspiracy. I'm opting for a Conspiracy! I've left critical comments on the Macbeth Forum at Shakespeare's Globe - comments which have been removed, either after publishing or put into Moderation (which I take to mean I'm now blocked). I think Shakespeare's Globe is swinging their discussion policy towards 'positive comments only' which, yes, they are entitled to do as it's their show, but really it doesn't suggest an organisation interested in listening to people, even those people who have given them cash in the past! Which makes me think they're no longer interested in me or mine: perhaps under the new Vision I'm the 'wrong sort' of audience. Humph. Well, I'll copy one comment below, if that's alright, partly because I'm still feeling Shakespeare's Globe censoring is unjust, and partly because I want to highlight their fingers-in-the-ears attitude, and remind them that water flows. ''In the early days I heard the argument that Shakespeare's Globe would become an 'Elizabethan theme park' admired by tourists alone. That was proved so very wrong as the Globe became a centre for scholarship into theatrical practice and culture at a time of massive transition in the 16th/17th and 20th/21st centuries. But it is ironic that now I really do feel this theatre is becoming the 'Elizabethan theme park' once dreaded - yes, we get the shell of the theatre only with an abandonment of cultural study. 'And phew, I also feel sorry that, no matter what the range of questioning put to the Globe, the standard copy-and-paste response of 'experimentation' follows. Dear Globe, you were called *Shakespeare's* Globe for a reason - you're not called *The director's latest experiment which we're putting on at a reconstruction of the Globe*. Your argument of 'experimentation' does not address the questioning of what you are now there for.'' PS Thank you for letting me join the Forum! |
|
19,663 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 29, 2016 10:30:55 GMT
Welcome to the forum grit and I hope you!ll continue to post here, we are 100% independent! |
|
4,154 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 29, 2016 10:45:34 GMT
Hmm, I think what it comes down to for me is that if I *want* to see 'experimental' Shakespeare productions I'd prefer to go to a more comfortable theatre than the Globe (or, possibly, stream the productions from the comfort of my sofa). The only reason to put up with The Globe's discomforts was to get that unique 'authentic' (no, not completely, but as close as you can get) experience, and in particular the very direct connection between audience and performers.
Rice's productions just haven't appealed to me thus far - I even forgot to watch A Midsummer Night's Dream when the BBC live-streamed it.
As I say, there are people at work who have been and enjoyed them, though.
(Our company donated a chunk of money to the Swanamaker, so we regularly get a pair of free tickets, which you can put your name into the hat for. So someone in the office has seen just about every production for the last few years.)
|
|
20 posts
|
Post by grit on Sept 29, 2016 11:10:21 GMT
Yes kathryn I agree. Going to see a play was a labour of love for us too. To secure our front-of-stage pit position: Get up early, run to station, suffer train delay, run sainsbury's, grab lunch, run over bridge, reach queue for midday, grumble about being second to get there ... all so we could stand in a pit for three hours and be part of some real acting. We LOVED it!
Then under Rice at the Shrew they'd installed dreadful footlights which meant anyone under 5 foot 4 had to stand to one side to even see the stage. It meant people couldn't stand together - the lights broke apart the groundlings and destroyed our sense of cohesion and unity. But did anyone at Globe management even think about that?
Before the lights/sound/spectacle theatre we have now, I felt the groundling 'mob' was so fantastically useful in all the plays. We were the groundlings! The actors needed us like we needed them! We were both creating theatre: it really felt like a unity of participants. At Macbeth there was indeed that moment when we were told to cheer for Malcolm like we were trapped in a pantomime - when did the audience need explicit instruction to join in before?
The loss of that physical experience we had is something I lament. But I'd like to know what people are enjoying, because I really don't get what it is now! We've pushed off to the RSC where the kids pay the same £5 in the 16-25 scheme and can nab front row stalls if they're quick. Good theatre, comfortable, drive over late morning, comfy seats...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 11:15:15 GMT
Same thing I've always enjoyed - cheap tickets for usually-decent productions.  (And let's not pretend that they were *all* decent under Dromgoole's watch.) |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Sept 29, 2016 12:31:34 GMT
Yes kathryn I agree. Going to see a play was a labour of love for us too. To secure our front-of-stage pit position: Get up early, run to station, suffer train delay, run sainsbury's, grab lunch, run over bridge, reach queue for midday, grumble about being second to get there ... all so we could stand in a pit for three hours and be part of some real acting. We LOVED it! Then under Rice at the Shrew they'd installed dreadful footlights which meant anyone under 5 foot 4 had to stand to one side to even see the stage. It meant people couldn't stand together - the lights broke apart the groundlings and destroyed our sense of cohesion and unity. But did anyone at Globe management even think about that? Before the lights/sound/spectacle theatre we have now, I felt the groundling 'mob' was so fantastically useful in all the plays. We were the groundlings! The actors needed us like we needed them! We were both creating theatre: it really felt like a unity of participants. At Macbeth there was indeed that moment when we were told to cheer for Malcolm like we were trapped in a pantomime - when did the audience need explicit instruction to join in before? The loss of that physical experience we had is something I lament. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 13:15:06 GMT
Yes kathryn I agree. Going to see a play was a labour of love for us too. To secure our front-of-stage pit position: Get up early, run to station, suffer train delay, run sainsbury's, grab lunch, run over bridge, reach queue for midday, grumble about being second to get there ... all so we could stand in a pit for three hours and be part of some real acting. We LOVED it! Then under Rice at the Shrew they'd installed dreadful footlights which meant anyone under 5 foot 4 had to stand to one side to even see the stage. It meant people couldn't stand together - the lights broke apart the groundlings and destroyed our sense of cohesion and unity. But did anyone at Globe management even think about that? Before the lights/sound/spectacle theatre we have now, I felt the groundling 'mob' was so fantastically useful in all the plays. We were the groundlings! The actors needed us like we needed them! We were both creating theatre: it really felt like a unity of participants. At Macbeth there was indeed that moment when we were told to cheer for Malcolm like we were trapped in a pantomime - when did the audience need explicit instruction to join in before? The loss of that physical experience we had is something I lament. But I'd like to know what people are enjoying, because I really don't get what it is now! We've pushed off to the RSC where the kids pay the same £5 in the 16-25 scheme and can nab front row stalls if they're quick. Good theatre, comfortable, drive over late morning, comfy seats... Goodness. How big are these lights if they prevent groundlings from seeing the stage and don't allow people to stand together?? I can't say I noticed them when I was there last and I always stand in the pit. But hey, at least at the Globe you can still buy a single ticket (for now). |
|
20 posts
|
Post by grit on Sept 29, 2016 16:22:56 GMT
the footlights were there for the shrew, not there for macbeth, but they broke trust with me ... and let's face it, the Globe's not going to spend a whole wodge of cash on a light and sound rig without switching the 'on' button and at some point finding volume 11 on the dial. And single ticket? i buy single-seat ticket at the rsc for £16 restricted view; the kids pay the same fiver as they did at the Globe, and they have to buy those individually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2016 8:30:36 GMT
The lighting rig has been hired rather than purchased so while that could be *solely* a cost-saving thing (why buy if you're not using it from October to April?), it does also show they're not 100% married to it for the eternal future. For the record.
|
|
20 posts
|
Post by grit on Sept 30, 2016 15:39:53 GMT
Hurrah for that!
|
|
24 posts
|
Post by nobunaga on Oct 13, 2016 20:19:42 GMT
|
|
2,389 posts
|
The Globe
Sept 24, 2018 17:04:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by peggs on Sept 24, 2018 17:04:46 GMT
Probably as good a place to put this as any (and I think we may have discussed it before, but I can't find it): what walking routes do people use from London Bridge tube? I normally head for the Menier, then up Southwark Bridge Road and use the stairs down to the bank, or go Southwark Street / Sumner Street. On Saturday, half the road was up, so out of interest on the way back, I followed the river right along to the Golden Hind, then via Borough Market. That seemed very much longer and a lot more crowded. So, what's anyone else's favourite? I go the latter way and yes often very slow getting through, the way you describe sadly means nothing to me as I only literally know my route but sounds like now I've been doing it slow and long for no reason. Someone once took me a sort of a back route, I think we went past the rose and houses but am not great at remembering routes, came out the other side of borough market I think so was better. |
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 24, 2018 19:05:38 GMT
Keep the river on your right. Can’t fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by waybeyondblue on Sept 24, 2018 19:15:16 GMT
Probably as good a place to put this as any (and I think we may have discussed it before, but I can't find it): what walking routes do people use from London Bridge tube? I normally head for the Menier, then up Southwark Bridge Road and use the stairs down to the bank, or go Southwark Street / Sumner Street. On Saturday, half the road was up, so out of interest on the way back, I followed the river right along to the Golden Hind, then via Borough Market. That seemed very much longer and a lot more crowded. So, what's anyone else's favourite? My sedan takes me to the door. I wave at anyone who looks lost. |
|
|
|
The Globe
Sept 24, 2018 19:30:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2018 19:30:20 GMT
Who comes into London Bridge? Get out at Southwark, past the Union, turn left towards the Tate Modern (handy Costa/Tesco/Sainsbury's down this road if you need a snack on the way), then go round the foyer side of the Globe (rather than the path between the Tate and the Provost's Lodging), round the front, and Bob's your uncle!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Sept 24, 2018 20:37:49 GMT
Well if your train only goes to London bridge...….
Maybe if I google map it I can plot all your routes.
|
|
2,052 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Sept 24, 2018 22:09:39 GMT
Regardless of how many of the walking dead are wandering about, I go through Borough Market, down past the German deli and the Paul Smith shop, turn right and keep on towards towards the river then hard left and keep on going, theres nothing to see if you go round the back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2018 8:33:29 GMT
I can't *entirely* track your route via Google Maps, so you may want to check this for yourself, but I've checked my route and done my best with yours, and the Globe seems to be 0.6 walking miles from either station. Personally I find Southwark advantageous as it's an easier station to get out of (especially if someone's a newbie to London Bridge and not sure which exit will spit 'em out nearest their destination), and I generally do want to buy snacks if I'm on my way to the Globe, and any route that avoids both Borough Market and walking along the riverside where ALL THE PEOPLE are just saves time based on the foot traffic, never mind the distance. But I guess if you're not coming in on the Jubilee line then London Bridge makes a lot more sense based on the fact there's no real difference in distance and it would be silly to change lines at London Bridge station to ride to Southwark just to save pretty much no time at all walking-wise. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Sept 25, 2018 20:43:56 GMT
I'm an out of Londoner so to go to southwark i'd be getting off mail line, buying an extra ticket so it doesn't work although yes I agree London Bridge is just an invite to get lost it and takes an age to get out of. The only real reason i'm hurrying globewards is to get in the groundling queue and yes all those slow people drive me slowly mad as I think I could be whole people further back as you insist on walking very slowly and taking up the whole path so I've got till next year now to plot my way down further away from the river. And yeah i'll sometimes walk to a further station to get on one stop earlier and bags a seat.
|
|
(And let's not pretend that they were *all* decent under Dromgoole's watch.)
