|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 9:35:16 GMT
Yes, NTW and NTS locate all their work in Wales and Scotland and directly address their audiences, always with a participatory element in the case of NTW. But the NT just presents productions to be gawped at on the South Bank, often with particular appeal to people infatuated with American theatre. Perhaps so as to retain American Express sponsorship? Certainly the NT's activities and policies are dominated by the influence of financial factors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 9:42:18 GMT
I don't mind this American phase to be honest. Do you not remember when every other play was Irish? You're thinking of the Donmar  People like Rufus Norris and (especially) Sir David Hare have a curious love/hate relationship with USA. And in Sir David Hare's case the last Labour government too, he even married and divorced someone called Blair Brown. Off-topic, here's a choice bit of Grumpy Old Man rubbish from Sir David who doesn't seem to have seen the production of his own play Red Barn. www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/jan/29/david-hare-classic-british-drama-infected-radical-european-staging#comment-92158169When I read it I presumed that it was a not very subtle attack on Robert Icke, the director of The Red Barn and one highly influenced by contemporary European practice (Oresteia, Vanya, 1984 etc,). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 9:48:09 GMT
Yes, NTW and NTS locate all their work in Wales and Scotland and directly address their audiences, always with a participatory element in the case of NTW. But the NT just presents productions to be gawped at on the South Bank, often with particular appeal to people infatuated with American theatre. Perhaps so as to retain American Express sponsorship? Certainly the NT's activities and policies are dominated by the influence of financial factors. I'm not blindly defending the NT. Honestly not living in London I'm not engaged with their entire body of work, only the 'big hits' as I imagine most of the country are.
Perhaps it wasn't clear that I was indeed praising NTW and NTS for what they've done, for showing that you DON'T need a designated building to make work and that a National theatre can be experimental. (and while we're at it a groups of great women at the helm across the recent years too). I might not like some of NTW's work (they do tend to veer towards the overly pretentious at times) but I respect them for what they do.
BUT NTW and NTS don't have a big expensive building on the South Bank to run, and a historic remit that's markedly different. I don't fault the NT for 'crowd pleasing' or Rufus et al for star casting, big American plays or anything else. It's a different beast and not one I envy running.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 30, 2017 9:57:16 GMT
When I read it I presumed that it was a not very subtle attack on Robert Icke, the director of The Red Barn and one highly influenced by contemporary European practice (Oresteia, Vanya, 1984 etc,). Possibly so. My assumption was he wrote the book before that production and so had made himself look foolish. Possibly he is pissed-off the staging is so complicated he can't transfer it to Broadway. His criticism of high-concept Shakespeare is misguided if the alternative is his own catastrophically inept production of King Lear at NT where actors in generic old-style clothes marched across an empty stage, said their lines at each other, and marched off again. It misses the point entirely to question what the Merchant of Venice characters are doing in Vegas - it's a metaphor and provides useful cultural markers, Sir David, we're not bothered "why" they're there. |
|
907 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Jan 30, 2017 13:22:47 GMT
When I read it I presumed that it was a not very subtle attack on Robert Icke, the director of The Red Barn and one highly influenced by contemporary European practice (Oresteia, Vanya, 1984 etc,). Possibly so. My assumption was he wrote the book before that production and so had made himself look foolish. Possibly he is pissed-off the staging is so complicated he can't transfer it to Broadway. His criticism of high-concept Shakespeare is misguided if the alternative is his own catastrophically inept production of King Lear at NT where actors in generic old-style clothes marched across an empty stage, said their lines at each other, and marched off again. It misses the point entirely to question what the Merchant of Venice characters are doing in Vegas - it's a metaphor and provides useful cultural markers, Sir David, we're not bothered "why" they're there. To be fair, it seems to be Sweet who is criticising the Las Vegas setting, not Hare. I don't think Hare would have any problems with the Icke staging of The Red Barn as it was played as written. What he dislikes is plays where a wholesale betrayal of the original goes on. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 13:49:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 13:54:59 GMT
Grumpy old men, speak of them and they appear 
(I have a lot of respect of Billington's opinions but he does come across as having a grumpy moan about not getting enough nice plays he likes there)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 17:51:13 GMT
When I read it I presumed that it was a not very subtle attack on Robert Icke, the director of The Red Barn and one highly influenced by contemporary European practice (Oresteia, Vanya, 1984 etc,). Possibly so. My assumption was he wrote the book before that production and so had made himself look foolish. Possibly he is pissed-off the staging is so complicated he can't transfer it to Broadway. His criticism of high-concept Shakespeare is misguided if the alternative is his own catastrophically inept production of King Lear at NT where actors in generic old-style clothes marched across an empty stage, said their lines at each other, and marched off again. It misses the point entirely to question what the Merchant of Venice characters are doing in Vegas - it's a metaphor and provides useful cultural markers, Sir David, we're not bothered "why" they're there. Lyn Gardner replies - www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2017/jan/30/david-hare-state-of-british-theatre-europeChoice quote, having listed a number of plays that address national concerns "They may be presented on smaller canvases than Hare is used to – he has long had access to big stages – but these plays get to the very core of the nation’s soul and psyche, and they do it without big third-act speeches telling you what to think." Ouch..... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 8:47:03 GMT
Ooh well done Lyn!
"Hare is defending his patch as a playwright"
Yup and we all know when grumpy old men don't get their way they stamp their feet and blame everyone else!
I also like
"All theatre cultures have plenty they can learn from each other. It’s when you stop learning and become insular that theatre culture becomes desiccated and begins repeating itself."
Well put!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 31, 2017 9:09:28 GMT
I agree with Billingtgon's criticisms (link above) but I'm not too concerned because it means I just switch from going to NT in favour of theatres with more talented ADs who programme a wider and more interesting range of stuff (Young Vic, Almeida). The real significance of the piece is it is the first time anyone from inside the theatrical establishment has directly criticised Norris. I expect now Billington will not let go - he didn't after he started criticising Nunn for programming too many musicals. Norris' choice of Macbeth to display his classical theatre credentials is brave, lots of directors have failed with that one (Richard Eyre, John Caird, Howard Davies).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 10:33:03 GMT
It would be interesting to read Michael Billington's response to the response of the NT spokesperson to his polemic. They remind poor deprived Mikey that the NT staged nine classic plays last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 31, 2017 11:20:19 GMT
It would be interesting to read Michael Billington's response to the response of the NT spokesperson to his polemic. They remind poor deprived Mikey that the NT staged nine classic plays last year. That won't bother him, once he's got an idea in his head he won't let go of it, like Nunn and the musicals where there were quite valid reasons put forward both artistic (delayed new plays) and financial for Nunn's policy. |
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Jan 31, 2017 11:43:43 GMT
Where can one see the NT response? There is a nonsensical response on whatsonstage by the reliably batty matt trueman!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 12:25:45 GMT
|
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 31, 2017 12:52:12 GMT
Grumpy old men, speak of them and they appear
(I have a lot of respect of Billington's opinions but he does come across as having a grumpy moan about not getting enough nice plays he likes there)
Norris can't possibly please everyone. He can't support new writing, hit his gender-parity/diversity targets, and put on enough classic plays to keep Billington happy. Not all in the same season, anyway. Some years there will inevitably be more new writing (and diverse writers) than revivals, some years there will be more classics. |
|
2,512 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jan 31, 2017 13:28:00 GMT
I normally like Billington, but that article is absolute rubbish. If the quality of the new stuff is in question, then ok, but the fact is he seems annoyed at the idea of new stuff. And as the national said, they have done quite a bit of 'Classic' plays.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 13:35:27 GMT
If it's a triangle of Greater Diversity vs New Writing vs Classic Revivals and we have to pick two, then I am absolutely ALL FOR enraging Billington by dialling down on Classic Revivals. Yes, other theatres do new plays extremely well, but the Royal Court isn't going to give us a War Horse, the Bush is unlikely to get us a Curious Incident. And, as has been pointed out, it's extremely moot as it's a complete denial of fact (even Billington's living in a post-truth world) to claim the NT isn't giving us any Classic Revivals. How many more Deep Blue Seas or Seagulls (or other nautically-named plays) do we even need anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 13:54:42 GMT
Grumpy old men, speak of them and they appear
(I have a lot of respect of Billington's opinions but he does come across as having a grumpy moan about not getting enough nice plays he likes there)
Norris can't possibly please everyone. He can't support new writing, hit his gender-parity/diversity targets, and put on enough classic plays to keep Billington happy. Not all in the same season, anyway. Some years there will inevitably be more new writing (and diverse writers) than revivals, some years there will be more classics. Well exactly- personally I like what Norriss is doing, not that I physically get to see much of it, but I think he's striking a good balance in his programming. And like you say it shifts year on year. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 14:01:13 GMT
There's a very upbeat interview with Rufus Norris on the Telegraph website today. (You have to register to read it but you're allowed one free "premium" article per week)! He says the NT has a problem with audiences - How to keep the demand down because too many people want to attend the shows!
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jan 31, 2017 14:20:37 GMT
How many more Deep Blue Seas or Seagulls (or other nautically-named plays) do we even need anyway? Well, that's The Last Ship on its way then. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 31, 2017 16:39:09 GMT
If it's a triangle of Greater Diversity vs New Writing vs Classic Revivals and we have to pick two, then I am absolutely ALL FOR enraging Billington by dialling down on Classic Revivals. Yes, other theatres do new plays extremely well, but the Royal Court isn't going to give us a War Horse, the Bush is unlikely to get us a Curious Incident. And, as has been pointed out, it's extremely moot as it's a complete denial of fact (even Billington's living in a post-truth world) to claim the NT isn't giving us any Classic Revivals. How many more Deep Blue Seas or Seagulls (or other nautically-named plays) do we even need anyway? Billington's point is the NT have enough resources to balance all three. In the subsidised sector in London there are several theatres that only do new plays, there are none at all that only do classic revivals, it is an under-represented sector and in the interests of diversity it is the job of the NT to remedy that. One thing he could do is put some classical revivals back in the Dorfmann, that would allow him to schedule a few of more limited popular appeal, as it is his revivals in the bigger spaces are of necessity very bland - Twelfth Night, Macbeth, Seagull etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 31, 2017 16:42:01 GMT
There's a very upbeat interview with Rufus Norris on the Telegraph website today. (You have to register to read it but you're allowed one free "premium" article per week)! He says the NT has a problem with audiences - How to keep the demand down because too many people want to attend the shows! Extortionate pricing seems to be his favoured strategy to remedy the problem |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 16:47:47 GMT
Billington's point is the NT have enough resources to balance all three. In the subsidised sector in London there are several theatres that only do new plays, there are none at all that only do classic revivals, it is an under-represented sector and in the interests of diversity it is the job of the NT to remedy that. I think he was spooked by the 2017 line-up and fears it signals a permanent policy change. It's a peculiar feature of the NT that every show is presented and promoted in isolation. It's just about the only theatre which doesn't have "seasons". So everyone is left scratching around to concoct rationalisations for what they are staging. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 31, 2017 18:01:59 GMT
Billington's point is the NT have enough resources to balance all three. In the subsidised sector in London there are several theatres that only do new plays, there are none at all that only do classic revivals, it is an under-represented sector and in the interests of diversity it is the job of the NT to remedy that. I think he was spooked by the 2017 line-up and fears it signals a permanent policy change. It's a peculiar feature of the NT that every show is presented and promoted in isolation. It's just about the only theatre which doesn't have "seasons". So everyone is left scratching around to concoct rationalisations for what they are staging. Even his American stuff hasn't been themed as a season. He should look at how Rupert Goold ran his Greeks season at Almeida with all sorts of high-profile supporting events that generated lots of positive media coverage. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 18:15:20 GMT
Yes, the super-abundance of American stuff is a good example. It isn't a planned season but it's so obvious and anomalous that everyone wonders why it's happening, and everyone comes up with a personal rationalisation or range of possibilities. My guess is that it's coincidental, with each production having been planned in isolation, but that no one at the NT considered how it would be perceived.
The NT says that it aims to produce a range of shows so that at any time the varied offer on show will appeal in different ways to different audiences. So they actively seek to avoid seasons! I think they are so infatuated and steeped in American culture that they simply didn't notice that everything in the Lyttelton for the whole of 2017 was American or based on American sources.
|
|
