|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 12:54:47 GMT
The thing is it was down to the board (and original writing of artistic vision/remit) to make clear what they wanted- the traditional or innovation AND the board needs to be clear on whether, that original remit still stands or if after x number of years it's time for a change. If it isn't, fine business as usual and hire someone for business as usual. Hiring Rice suggested they did want a change. It makes them look like: Globe Board: We want new and exciting things now we've done the other thing. Emma Rice: Does new and different things as her previous work would suggest. Globe Board: No not like that. 'New and exciting' does not necessarily mean changing the fundamentals of the building, though. I suspect that there was an assumption that whoever applied for the Globe job wanted to work at the Globe because it's the Globe. If you assume that, you don't expect the building itself to be changed to fit the AD's vision, you expect the AD to adapt to the building. I know very little about Emma Rice, and have seen very little of her previous work, but I assumed that the people who howled about her being all wrong when she was appointed had missed the point, and that she would be adapting her previous style to fit the building. I assumed the challenge of that was what drew her to the job. Clearly this is something that should have been explicitly discussed, but it would not surprise me if it was just so taken for granted that it wasn't. That's fair comment, conversely I assumed the opposite that it would have been explicitly discussed what they did and didn't want, but I realise that's probably optimistic now! Like I say I can't comment on how she did or didn't fit the previous model/mode having not seen it first hand BUT from what I saw/heard I didn't (personally) feel that she did change the fundamentals, for example none of the lights/sound were installed permanently-there's nothing to say they weren't for certain productions only (equally nothing to say she didn't intend to keep them, for which we'll probably never know).
And like I've said, I get where people are coming from in their critique in some cases, but in others it does sound more like a 'get off my land' approach which unfortunately is what I've experienced first hand in attitudes from so called 'Globe Fans' which actually put me off ever setting foot in the place again pre-Rice. But I digress a bit there.
Ironically I think though our different takes on it could/would both have been 'proven' one way or another if she'd been given a longer crack at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 13:06:55 GMT
Yes, suspect given another couple of years the place would have got used to her and she would have got used to the place. Last season didn't appeal to me but doesn't feel like she's been given a fair chance. Unlike (eg) Rufus Norris who seems to have adapted his approach for his second year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 13:07:59 GMT
Too late for The Globe now though, they must have expected this sort of reaction given that they tried to hide it behind the new season announcement. There was a new season announcement?  |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 25, 2016 13:39:57 GMT
I also don't buy the angle about it being about shared light and such, it's likely to be a deeper, more fundamental issue and I imagine that it goes back to the large scale donors that effectively control matters at The Globe. I expect it was the large scale donors that swung it, yes. Lots of people donated money to produce a recreation of Shakespeare's theatre. Reports that Rice was not using the space as it was originally intended - whether justified or not - could have prompted people to cancel their donations. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 25, 2016 13:43:03 GMT
'New and exciting' does not necessarily mean changing the fundamentals of the building, though. I suspect that there was an assumption that whoever applied for the Globe job wanted to work at the Globe because it's the Globe. If you assume that, you don't expect the building itself to be changed to fit the AD's vision, you expect the AD to adapt to the building. I know very little about Emma Rice, and have seen very little of her previous work, but I assumed that the people who howled about her being all wrong when she was appointed had missed the point, and that she would be adapting her previous style to fit the building. I assumed the challenge of that was what drew her to the job. Clearly this is something that should have been explicitly discussed, but it would not surprise me if it was just so taken for granted that it wasn't. That's fair comment, conversely I assumed the opposite that it would have been explicitly discussed what they did and didn't want, but I realise that's probably optimistic now!
Every project I've worked on that turned into a monumental mess happened because various people took their assumptions for granted, and didn't think to articulate their expectations, because it was just so obvious to them that they didn't realise anyone else would do things differently. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 13:45:20 GMT
Yeah just to be clear Kathryn I'm agreeing with you- they very much SHOULD have spelled out what they did and didn't mean by 'new' or 'not new' and by they I mean both Emma Rice and the Board, because yes I've been a part of more monumental cock ups than I care to remember for similar reasons!!
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 25, 2016 13:57:52 GMT
Sorry, I didn't think you were disagreeing!
It's just one of those things that seems to be inherent to human nature - and always causes forehead-slappingly-awful situations where you end up thinking, 'why didn't someone just SAY SO??!'
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 14:00:15 GMT
maybe she got really drunk at the Christmas doo and snogged someone's partner? Or she's been thieving?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 14:20:53 GMT
maybe she got really drunk at the Christmas doo and snogged someone's partner? Or she's been thieving? Maybe she took a load of tea towels from the gift shop?
One thing the Evening Standard pointed out is that as it's not a publically funded theatre like for example the NT or other Arts Council Clients, they're a bit more free to do what they want...for better or worse!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 14:27:05 GMT
maybe she got really drunk at the Christmas doo and snogged someone's partner? Or she's been thieving? If that was a sackable offence we'd all be out of a job. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Oct 25, 2016 14:38:50 GMT
Sometimes things don't just work out. Rice was always a 'brave' appointment - not because of her track record about the use of technology as part of her theatrical toolbox but because she had never directed Shakespeare before.
This was always going to be an uphill battle - not helped by the fact that she admitted that she didn't always understand the plays.
To be Artistic Director of a company that was dedicated (in the main) to the works of Shakespeare and his contemporaries without a track record in that area was, for me (and others), a step too far.
I only saw the broadcast of her Dream and found it overloaded with ideas and essentially a production that could have been at home in any other theatre in the UK. It didn't exploit the potential of the space.
The Globe has always balanced risk with historical investigation. And there is no reason why this should not continue going forward. It is the company that delivered both all male and all female ensembles, the three-person Tempest, projects investigation Original Pronunciation and much more. My first visit was to see Kathryn Hunter's production of Pericles - which was very far from being traditional.
We have many directors who have a deep love and knowledge of Shakespeare - and who take theatrical risks when it comes to staging the plays. Hopefully one of them will step forward and grasp the challenge of the Globe.
Rice is a talented director but was the wrong appointment. The board has moved as quickly as they can to move on from their earlier decision. That has taken a certain amount of courage. I don't think they have handled it as well as they could but it was necessary. Sometimes you have to put your hands up, admit errors and try to move forward - even knowing that you will get it in the neck from many angles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 14:48:32 GMT
Via Lyn Gardner "As Emma Rice departs, the Globe has egg on its face – and no vision" "The message is clear: the Globe is not really a theatre but part of the heritage industry and a plaything for academic researchers. This means it will have considerable difficulty attracting a new artistic director of any calibre and vision. Who wants to work in a theatre that in turning its back on Rice – who told me in April that she had ideas for at least four seasons – has made it clear that it would rather potter around in an artistic cul-de-sac than embrace a wider theatrical world?" I very much agree. Lyn Gardner article in full
The fallout begins - "Board members are rumoured to be leaving, the press release doesn't add up and insiders say it's about control: David Ellis wonders what on earth is happening at the Globe" Evening Standard article"A charity that made its first grants to Shakespeare’s Globe under artistic director Emma Rice’s tenure has revealed it will not give the theatre any more money, and is threatening to demand the return of money it has already pledged." The Stage link |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Oct 25, 2016 15:04:48 GMT
Whilst I understand having Zoe Wanamaker on the board it does mean that it is always going to be difficult for any AD moving away from Sam Wanamaker's vision. I am sure she is a professional and as an actor interested in new work's but this was her father's project. I do wonder if anyone close to Sam is open to it changing.
ETA: Alternatively Wanamaker might be furious and want Rice to stay but my overall point is that when people are talking about a vision created by Wanamaker I am not sure having his daughter on the board is a great idea for moving forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 15:08:54 GMT
Let us hope that no one applies to become Artistic Director. An appointment by this Board would be career suicide, and the appointee would be ostracised by the rest of the profession. We need Mark Rylance and Dominic Dromgoole to join everyone else, including the RSC, in condemning this Board. We need Lucy Bailey, director of Comus which starts previewing this week, to publicly attack the Board. This is the biggest theatre news story of my lifetime. It's outrageous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 25, 2016 15:10:28 GMT
Hard not to laugh at this shambles reallly, especially at how pissed-off Lyn Gardner is. . Board appoints Rice based on some sort of pitch she made at the interview about her vision then fire her when her work is exactly what any moderately well-informed theatre-goer could have told them it would be like. As noted above Lucy Bailey would be a good replacement.
The parallels with Norris are intriguing though, he seems to have bent to his board's pressure by scheduling middle-brow crowd-pleasers like Amadeus.
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by ldm2016 on Oct 25, 2016 15:16:07 GMT
Whilst I understand having Zoe Wanamaker on the board it does mean that it is always going to be difficult for any AD moving away from Sam Wanamaker's vision. I am sure she is a professional and as an actor interested in new work's but this was her father's project. I do wonder if anyone close to Sam is open to it changing. ETA: Alternatively Wanamaker might be furious and want Rice to stay but my overall point is that when people are talking about a vision created by Wanamaker I am not sure having his daughter on the board is a great idea for moving forward. But if that's their vision for The Globe it's their vision. end of.
The Globe is not committed to putting on hip-hop "versions" of Shakespeare's plays to please a section of the population.
There are plenty of fringe theatres in London to stage "unorthodox" interpretations of Shakespeare's work so why do people insist on putting pressure on the established theatres to stage productions aimed at and staring minority groups who never attend in their masses? Does it make you feel better about yourself? (not aimed directly at you btw)
That said, I was flabbergasted when Rice was appointed and the blame for the disaster which unfolded today lies solely with the person or persons who signed her contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 15:18:08 GMT
The parallels with Norris are intriguing though, he seems to have bent to his board's pressure by scheduling middle-brow crowd-pleasers like Amadeus. Unfair! Direction by Michael Longhurst in his large-scale debut and design by Chloe Lamford. Two of our leading, recently emerged theatremakers. It's a serious production, and you're chronically blinkered to categorise any show purely by making a value judgment of its text. On the other hand, you were probably just trying to wind us all up with a mock controversional comment? |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 25, 2016 15:20:49 GMT
Let us hope that no one applies to become Artistic Director. An appointment by this Board would be career suicide, and the appointee would be ostracised by the rest of the profession. We need Mark Rylance and Dominic Dromgoole to join everyone else, including the RSC, in condemning this Board. We need Lucy Bailey, director of Comus which starts previewing this week, to publicly attack the Board. This is the biggest theatre news story of my lifetime. It's outrageous. The RSC ? Why should their useless board get involved ? The RSC were entirely responsible for the Globe's success actually according to Greg Doran "When the RSC left London the felling of that great oak enabled smaller saplings to grow towards the light ..." I see Rylance has condemned the RSC recently and said he'll not work there again, for sure he'll be on board when you march on the Globe. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 25, 2016 15:24:55 GMT
The parallels with Norris are intriguing though, he seems to have bent to his board's pressure by scheduling middle-brow crowd-pleasers like Amadeus. Unfair! Direction by Michael Longhurst in his large-scale debut and design by Chloe Lamford. Two of our leading, recently emerged theatremakers. It's a serious production, and you're chronically blinkered to categorise any show purely by making a value judgment of its text. On the other hand, you were probably just trying to wind us all up with a mock controversional comment? The plays are chosen by Norris. Saying Amadeus is a middle-brow middle-class piece is hardly controversial, plenty of people (including several other playwrights and critics) have said it over the years. In terms of theatrical news you rate this minor skirmish higher than the opening of the NT on the South Bank for example ? |
|
117 posts
|
Post by ldm2016 on Oct 25, 2016 15:26:18 GMT
Let us hope that no one applies to become Artistic Director. An appointment by this Board would be career suicide, and the appointee would be ostracised by the rest of the profession. We need Mark Rylance and Dominic Dromgoole to join everyone else, including the RSC, in condemning this Board. We need Lucy Bailey, director of Comus which starts previewing this week, to publicly attack the Board. This is the biggest theatre news story of my lifetime. It's outrageous. The RSC ? Why should their useless board get involved ? The RSC were entirely responsible for the Globe's success actually according to Greg Doran "When the RSC left London the felling of that great oak enabled smaller saplings to grow towards the light ..." I see Rylance has condemned the RSC recently and said he'll not work there again, for sure he'll be on board when you march on the Globe. Good! After his awful Much Ado About Nothing I'm glad I'll never have to endure him in Stratford again... |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 25, 2016 15:29:06 GMT
The RSC ? Why should their useless board get involved ? The RSC were entirely responsible for the Globe's success actually according to Greg Doran "When the RSC left London the felling of that great oak enabled smaller saplings to grow towards the light ..." I see Rylance has condemned the RSC recently and said he'll not work there again, for sure he'll be on board when you march on the Globe. Good! After his awful Much Ado About Nothing I'm glad I'll never have to endure him in Stratford again... Rylance ? Missed it. He did it with a Northern Irish accent ? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 15:32:32 GMT
The RSC ? Why should their useless board get involved ? The RSC were entirely responsible for the Globe's success actually according to Greg Doran "When the RSC left London the felling of that great oak enabled smaller saplings to grow towards the light ..." I see Rylance has condemned the RSC recently and said he'll not work there again, for sure he'll be on board when you march on the Globe. Greg Doran, RSC executive director Catherine Mallyon and deputy artistic director Erica Whyman have issued a joint statement: "We are dismayed and disappointed to hear the news of Emma Rice’s departure from Shakespeare’s Globe. Emma is a vital force in British theatre and we have found her artistic programme, her productions and her spirit to be genuinely innovative and wonderfully refreshing. She has been a long-time collaborator with the RSC and is a bold, thoughtful and generous theatre artist who has always placed the audience at the heart of her work. "It is a great shame that her energy and thrilling new approach will now not be given the time and support it takes for any new artistic direction to be fully realised and understood. We look forward very much to working with Emma again in the future." |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 25, 2016 15:33:55 GMT
Via Lyn Gardner "The message is clear: the Globe is not really a theatre but part of the heritage industry and a plaything for academic researchers. This is such an overreaction (though of course just the sort of sensationalist angle you expect from the Gruan). As if it wasn't producing excellent theatre (at times) under previous ADs. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 15:36:26 GMT
Kathryn, read Lyn's article. It makes perfect sense when read in context.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 25, 2016 15:37:49 GMT
The RSC ? Why should their useless board get involved ? The RSC were entirely responsible for the Globe's success actually according to Greg Doran "When the RSC left London the felling of that great oak enabled smaller saplings to grow towards the light ..." I see Rylance has condemned the RSC recently and said he'll not work there again, for sure he'll be on board when you march on the Globe. Greg Doran, RSC executive director Catherine Mallyon and deputy artistic director Erica Whyman have issued a joint statement: "We are dismayed and disappointed to hear the news of Emma Rice’s departure from Shakespeare’s Globe. Emma is a vital force in British theatre and we have found her artistic programme, her productions and her spirit to be genuinely innovative and wonderfully refreshing. She has been a long-time collaborator with the RSC and is a bold, thoughtful and generous theatre artist who has always placed the audience at the heart of her work. "It is a great shame that her energy and thrilling new approach will now not be given the time and support it takes for any new artistic direction to be fully realised and understood. We look forward very much to working with Emma again in the future." It looks rather like they're now angling for Rice to come and work for them! |
|
