NT 2016

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2016 17:46:26 GMT @cardinalpirelli said:

I would have thought that the rename to Temporary Theatre would have clued people in as to it not being there for much longer.

That's known as "hiding in plain sight"

[showgirl]

I do know they're closing it; I was just adding my own version of "I wish" to earlier comments. But at least the red box did receive a reprieve and has lasted longer than originally intended, and has encouraged other theatres to try something similar (unless they have changed their minds, the management at Stratford East were planning one). All the more reason to make the most of the remaining productions: I'm seeing Iphigenia + Sugar Water soon.

[Jan]

Feb 7, 2016 18:13:04 GMT @thematthew said:

Feb 7, 2016 16:17:32 GMT Jan said:

£19.7 million in 2011 is worth £21.65 million in 2015 (average inflation 2.3%) so £17.8 million represents a cut of 17.5% to that figure (in real terms). Surprised with so many accountants on the board they can't manage to get the figures right, I suppose they think they can print any old rubbish and people will believe it because they want to. 

Calculating from 2010 to 2014 here gives £22.56 million. From there it looks as though they've done the calculation the wrong way round: 22.65 is an increase of 26% over 17.80, but they should be going the other way and 17.80 is a reduction of 21% from 22.65.

Possibly. Of course the reason for them choosing 2010-11 for the base line was because that's when the Tories were elected SO IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT. Actually even if their 30% figure was correct it is disingenuous because subsidy is a small fraction of their total income which is £117 million so the subsidy cut, even in real terms, over 5 years, is 4% of income, But 4% over 5 years isn't much of a scare story. Sitting there with their Dorfmann millions they should shut up about THE CUTS.

[oxfordsimon]

One of the things that amazed me about the NT accounts was the fact that they spend £1.2 million a year on 'research' - which is a huge amount of cash. I would like to know exactly what this has produced and would hope that it isn't just an excuse to indulge NT creatives.

Also the lack of financial rigour when it comes to balancing production costs with production income. They spend twice as much creating shows than they generate in income - when it comes to South Bank productions. Now I can appreciate that certain productions will never easily break-even and so some subsidy is necessary to allow for good work to be produced. But I cannot accept that they need to spend that amount of money to create the productions - particularly considering they own the building.

There is a lot of indulging going on there.

Perhaps it needs to stop - as it does in the vast majority of ACE-funding major companies. Focus on core activities, do good work with decent financial controls in place. This is not about stifling creativity or imposing a 'cuts agenda' - it is about accepting that when you are spending tax revenues (and then expecting tax payers to buy the tickets), you need to justify every penny.

It is possible to create amazing theatre without spending twice as much to create the shows as you will ever generate in ticket sales. Companies are doing it up and down the country - nay, all around the world. Subsidy is necessary - absolutely - but along with the money comes a responsibility to use it effectively. I am not convinced that the NT (or a number of other companies) have fully embraced that.

[Deleted]

The "production costs" include apportionments of departmental costs. The NT has chosen to focus on producing theatre at its home base because their very high volume of local production (at over twenty new shows a year, unique in the UK) makes their production departments economically viable. They are recognised as jewels in the crown of the NT operation. At a recent Almeida event, Richard Eyre told of how he made their management more effective by allocating an overall budget to each production, which then used each Department as required, whereas in Peter Hall's day each individual production had the same fixed departmental budget so that, for example, the Music department would grant the director the same resources whether the show needed a full choir or no music at all.

The "research", now in the New Work department and previously in the Studio and Literary department, is a national resource, open far far beyond the narrow circle of NT creatives, and is arguably at least as important to theatre in the UK as are the productions staged by the NT. However, the recent press conference and release have directly addressed your issue of effectiveness by stating that the NT is striving to stage more productions as a direct result of some of these research projects.

[Deleted]

I agree that the 'research' both in the 'new work' section and the archive/eduction element is really of central importance beyond the NT.

Their archive is the best theatrical archive in the UK, they meticulously archive productions in a way that nowhere else does, which whatever you think of the individual productions is vital for preserving history and is a real help to future theatre makers (who can access it for their future productions etc) it's also one of the most accessible to the public as well, which is an exception in archive terms. All of that becomes quite cyclical and feeds into the new work, inside and outside the NT. For my money (indirectly) it's part of any theatre that bears the 'National' banner to preserve productions/use that for education. So although it's a big chunk of money, personally I think it's an important one.

[Jan]

Feb 8, 2016 10:08:23 GMT @emicardiff said:

Their archive is the best theatrical archive in the UK, they meticulously archive productions in a way that nowhere else does, 

Better than the RSC ? In what way ? 

[Deleted]

In fairness probably on a par with the RSC in the amount of stuff they archive, but not in terms of public accessibility (anyone can go to the NT and look at the archive with just an email/phone call) which I think is of great importance.

I think they've also been recording productions for longer than the RSC, but I could be wrong about that.

Do the RSC keep all their designs/annotated SM scripts etc as well? (I don't recall off the top of my head so genuinely asking)

For me however the openness of their archive and the way they increasingly use it in education work/exhibitions is "justification" for the money spent on that sector (which the figure quoted isn't quite just for archive stuff but a part of that general sector)

[Jan]

Feb 9, 2016 8:15:10 GMT @emicardiff said:

In fairness probably on a par with the RSC in the amount of stuff they archive, but not in terms of public accessibility (anyone can go to the NT and look at the archive with just an email/phone call) which I think is of great importance.

I think they've also been recording productions for longer than the RSC, but I could be wrong about that.

Do the RSC keep all their designs/annotated SM scripts etc as well? (I don't recall off the top of my head so genuinely asking)

For me however the openness of their archive and the way they increasingly use it in education work/exhibitions is "justification" for the money spent on that sector (which the figure quoted isn't quite just for archive stuff but a part of that general sector)

A lot of the RSC material is held by the Birthplace Trust and is available to the public. 

www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/collections.html

I think you might be right about the NT recording productions for longer but I'm not sure. 

[Deleted]

Fair enough, sounds like they're about even. My main point was that they (and the RSC as well) are justified in having that much of their funding allocated to archive/preservation type work, as it's an important part of preserving theatrical history (but as a theatre historian I would say that...!)

But I think yes NT have been recording longer than most in the UK (but not as long as Broadway weirdly)

[lynette]

If they used the archive you think they would learn from their mistakes.

[rumbledoll]

I wonder how they are going to manage 4 show (Opera + 3 Chekhov) at Olivier in the summer.. Unless they plan to do mostly 3 Chekhov plays in one day but that's exhausting for the cast..

[Deleted]

It'd only be properly exhausting for Olivia Vinall (is she transferring?). Most of 'em are only in two or less, and the other three who are in the full trilogy don't have the biggest roles.

[Polly1]

Does anyone know if Threepenny Opera will still be on in September?

[rumbledoll]

Polly, I imagine they will do at least 5 months run with it (with break for Chekhov starting in July), probably even longer if actor's schedule allows. Remember Othello was running for 7 month..
But you'll never guess in advance. I believe they are to realease tickets in batches (May-July first) like they always do and if the bottom date in the list does't have "LAST" mark, it means the show will extend.

[rumbledoll]

Baemax, Olivia is tranferring (she is Nt's darling after all), and yes, I see your point... Btw, I think her Sasha will be a lovely match to Geoffrey Streatfeild's Ivanov

[Polly1]

Thanks for reply, Rumbledoll

[lynette]

Just received message from NT about legacies. Desperate?

[Deleted]

Feb 10, 2016 10:39:21 GMT lynette said:

Just received message from NT about legacies. Desperate?

Look both ways when you cross the road... 

[partytentdown]

I just bought a ticket for The Flick (a handful seem to have gone on sale) but my performance had an asterisk by it, anyone know what that means?

[Polly1]

Feb 10, 2016 12:00:47 GMT partytentdown said:

I just bought a ticket for The Flick (a handful seem to have gone on sale) but my performance had an asterisk by it, anyone know what that means?

It just means there aren't many tickets left for that performance.

[partytentdown]

Feb 10, 2016 12:03:28 GMT Polly1 said:

Feb 10, 2016 12:00:47 GMT partytentdown said:

I just bought a ticket for The Flick (a handful seem to have gone on sale) but my performance had an asterisk by it, anyone know what that means?

It just means there aren't many tickets left for that performance.

Ah, phew. Thought it was maybe in French or something.

[rumbledoll]

The email from NT states Feb 29 as booking date for Advance Members yet initially it was Feb 22. Not sure if Public booking date changed as well..

[Deleted]

My email from the NT today said that they are going to start charging £2.50 for phone bookings. Have always admired the fact that the NT doesn't charge people to buy tickets from them, feels to me like a very bad and miserly decision.

[Deleted]

Feb 10, 2016 15:40:36 GMT rumbledoll said:

The email from NT states Feb 29 as booking date for Advance Members yet initially it was Feb 22. Not sure if Public booking date changed as well..

That is not correct

It's 22nd for supporting cast

24th priority

29th advance

I don't know why anyone bothers with advance