204 posts
|
Post by argon on Apr 24, 2017 12:30:27 GMT
Ckockeirk Orange meets Frank Spencer with drum & bass
Extreme Regietheatre
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 24, 2017 12:37:01 GMT
Ckockeirk Orange meets Frank Spencer with drum & bass Extreme Regietheatre Another year where I will completely avoid The Globe then by the sounds of it...
|
|
2,480 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 24, 2017 12:53:13 GMT
Ckockeirk Orange meets Frank Spencer with drum & bass Extreme Regietheatre That sounds great. Is it a same sex couple? |
|
204 posts
|
Post by argon on Apr 24, 2017 12:59:08 GMT
Ckockeirk Orange meets Frank Spencer with drum & bass Extreme Regietheatre That sounds great. Is it a same sex couple? Mercutio gender swap only but that's an interesting thought |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 13:30:51 GMT
Southwark Playhouse did a same gender R&J a while ago (both female) - worked really, really well.
|
|
2,480 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 24, 2017 13:32:22 GMT
Southwark Playhouse did a same gender R&J a while ago (both female) - worked really, really well. I believe the Union theatre are doing one next month with two gay footballers |
|
24 posts
|
Post by nobunaga on Apr 25, 2017 17:15:29 GMT
|
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 25, 2017 17:54:59 GMT
I'm going to see Much Ado later in year. Would appreciate a heads up on it if it is awful so I can dump the tix on some unsuspecting young person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 18:35:48 GMT
People like that are the reason why Emma Rice was needed. A quick twitter check reveals that they are, indeed, unrepresentative (unless you are comparing with the hyperconservative element within, who have trashed the Globe's reputation, sacrificed at the altar of their own narrow tastes). |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 25, 2017 19:01:28 GMT
Not convinced booing theatre is ever ok even if you don't like it, will wait and see what other people think, I've never been a fan of R and J so i'm less fussed what they do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 19:44:48 GMT
I'm going to see Much Ado later in year. Would appreciate a heads up on it if it is awful so I can dump the tix on some unsuspecting young person. Matthew Dunster is pretty gung-ho in his support of Emma Rice, I wouldn't expect his productions to be especially toned down.  |
|
24 posts
|
Post by nobunaga on Apr 25, 2017 20:09:41 GMT
I have only ever booed once-that was a production of Wagner's parisval at the royal opera which was pure bilge..And then it was only aimed at the director. As to Emma Rice been **needed**-in a way I agree:she should have been given a production to direct where she could try her ideas out-ideally there should be one such production each year.The problem I have with Rice's approach was every production had to have loud lights,loud music-which I really hate so last year was not a pleasant experience..Also remember that the Globe was never a conservative place-only 17 "Orginal practices" type plays have been performed (and 7 of those were either all Female or has a mixed cast so perhaps don't really count as OP.So a grand total of 10 plays in twenty years-thats hardly an excessive amount. So Rice I think is useful-but needed? No. I want to see a mix of plays both modern and OP and that mix is not possible in Rices vision. As to the Globes reputation-well,we will see.I suspect that many visit to experience the theatre-who is artistic director and who is the director of the play is secondary so perfomances will still sell out on the experience of the theatre itself. What will be intresting will be if any other companies will want to perform on stage after Rice has left.. BTW info on OP at the Globe can be found here www.shakespearesglobe.com/uploads/files/2016/06/original_practice.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 21:21:35 GMT
You don't 'give' a production to an artistic director, they form the direction of the space that they are in charge of, which is exactly what as has happened. Any theatre becomes a reflection of its head and the Globe's protestations of somehow being different are faintly ridiculous, it's a theatre, not a museum, only as distinctive as the Young Vic or the Donmar. If an audience changes then all well and good, some people who didn't go now will and vice versa. I used to go to the Donmar quite a lot but rarely nowadays as they've moved away from me, yet I visit the Young Vic many more times than I would have done pre 2000. Things change, things move on, people change, people move on. There is little mileage in a theatre trying to keep hold of the past, doing things because that's what was done previously.
Regarding reputation, audience is an indicator but only having access to its demographics and churn would illustrate that, and we don't have the information. More visible is the way that it is covered and reported on and that has turned pretty negative at best, with varying responses of an angrier hue also appearing.
|
|
24 posts
|
Post by nobunaga on Apr 26, 2017 19:43:39 GMT
In some way I can understand why the Globe should think itself diffrent-and I agree with them.The Globe has always had an academic element which most theatres do not and
this is in addition to it's education work.How much that Academic element feeds what goes on stage is an intresting question-I got the impression that Rylance was the most
influenced and dromgoole less so:others may have a diffent impression.
I found the press coverage fasinating-it seemed to split down fairly political lines with the left wing supporting Rice and the more Right wing supporting the Board.I am
curious if future coverage will split down the same lines:intresting times lie ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 20:31:04 GMT
It is unfathomable how the radical, audience centred popular entertainment that the original Globe was, has been co-opted by dessicated academics in an attempt to make it some museum exhibit. It is difficult to imagine how much more wrong in their approach and beliefs as regards Shakespeare's legacy they could be.
As for politics I don't care what they are, although it is blindingly obvious that any attempt to position conservatism as anti elitist seems to be failing spectacularly with these particular people. They couldn't be behaving in.a more elitist manner if they tried.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 21:00:24 GMT
I find it interesting how no one in this thread has yet actually mentioned the director of this production. Whatever you think of it when you see it, let's bear in mind that although Emma Rice has facilitated it, Daniel Kramer will be the one to blame.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 27, 2017 6:31:35 GMT
It is unfathomable how the radical, audience centred popular entertainment that the original Globe was, has been co-opted by dessicated academics in an attempt to make it some museum exhibit. It is difficult to imagine how much more wrong in their approach and beliefs as regards Shakespeare's legacy they could be. As for politics I don't care what they are, although it is blindingly obvious that any attempt to position conservatism as anti elitist seems to be failing spectacularly with these particular people. They couldn't be behaving in.a more elitist manner if they tried. But Rice is also an elitist within her own political sphere, imposing her own rather conventional views which are those of a 50-year old left-wing white woman well-embedded in the theatrical establishment. If they really wanted to skew the output to a younger and more diverse audience rather than just grandstanding on those issues (jury's out on that) it would have been better to appoint a much younger more diverse AD in my view. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 7:57:45 GMT
It is unfathomable how the radical, audience centred popular entertainment that the original Globe was, has been co-opted by dessicated academics in an attempt to make it some museum exhibit. It is difficult to imagine how much more wrong in their approach and beliefs as regards Shakespeare's legacy they could be. As for politics I don't care what they are, although it is blindingly obvious that any attempt to position conservatism as anti elitist seems to be failing spectacularly with these particular people. They couldn't be behaving in.a more elitist manner if they tried. But Rice is also an elitist within her own political sphere, imposing her own rather conventional views which are those of a 50-year old left-wing white woman well-embedded in the theatrical establishment. If they really wanted to skew the output to a younger and more diverse audience rather than just grandstanding on those issues (jury's out on that) it would have been better to appoint a much younger more diverse AD in my view. This is about theatre, not politics and there Rice is very much anti-elitist. If this was about Katie Mitchell then I could see a point but not here (I love Mitchell's work but she definitely doesn't direct in a populist manner). |
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 27, 2017 8:04:39 GMT
In some way I can understand why the Globe should think itself diffrent-and I agree with them.The Globe has always had an academic element which most theatres do not and this is in addition to it's education work.How much that Academic element feeds what goes on stage is an intresting question-I got the impression that Rylance was the most influenced and dromgoole less so:others may have a diffent impression. I found the press coverage fasinating-it seemed to split down fairly political lines with the left wing supporting Rice and the more Right wing supporting the Board.I am curious if future coverage will split down the same lines:intresting times lie ahead. It's not about left or right, it's about right and wrong.
In London we are blessed to have an incredible amount of theatres offering a whole array and eclectic mixture of productions. However, we have a historical culture and heritage which deserves to be preserved. maintained and showcased and this is what The National and The Globe should be for.
There are too many "progressives" out there willing to promote their opinions about social inclusion, diversification and the democratisation of theatre - sentiments I agree with - but are equally scathing in their attacks on the "dominant" culture which is equally deserving of protection.
|
|
2,480 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 27, 2017 8:11:35 GMT
In some way I can understand why the Globe should think itself diffrent-and I agree with them.The Globe has always had an academic element which most theatres do not and this is in addition to it's education work.How much that Academic element feeds what goes on stage is an intresting question-I got the impression that Rylance was the most influenced and dromgoole less so:others may have a diffent impression. I found the press coverage fasinating-it seemed to split down fairly political lines with the left wing supporting Rice and the more Right wing supporting the Board.I am curious if future coverage will split down the same lines:intresting times lie ahead. It's not about left or right, it's about right and wrong.
In London we are blessed to have an incredible amount of theatres offering a whole array and eclectic mixture of productions. However, we have a historical culture and heritage which deserves to be preserved. maintained and showcased and this is what The National and The Globe should be for.
There are too many "progressives" out there willing to promote their opinions about social inclusion, diversification and the democratisation of theatre - sentiments I agree with - but are equally scathing in their attacks on the "dominant" culture which is equally deserving of protection.
Again, Rice was very clear what her tenure would be about: none of her productions have strayed from her initial interviews on the subject, so I can only assume she said the same in her interviews for the job.
It's the boards fault for hiring her and then firing her in such a manner. Rice did the job she said she was going to do.
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 27, 2017 8:25:59 GMT
It's not about left or right, it's about right and wrong.
In London we are blessed to have an incredible amount of theatres offering a whole array and eclectic mixture of productions. However, we have a historical culture and heritage which deserves to be preserved. maintained and showcased and this is what The National and The Globe should be for.
There are too many "progressives" out there willing to promote their opinions about social inclusion, diversification and the democratisation of theatre - sentiments I agree with - but are equally scathing in their attacks on the "dominant" culture which is equally deserving of protection.
Again, Rice was very clear what her tenure would be about: none of her productions have strayed from her initial interviews on the subject, so I can only assume she said the same in her interviews for the job.
It's the boards fault for hiring her and then firing her in such a manner. Rice did the job she said she was going to do.
Totally agree that the blame lies with the board.
They either did not ask the right questions in the interview or did not conduct any research into her.
I do, however, think that Rice is a trouble-maker who aimed to promote her own agenda.
|
|
2,480 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 27, 2017 8:30:03 GMT
Again, Rice was very clear what her tenure would be about: none of her productions have strayed from her initial interviews on the subject, so I can only assume she said the same in her interviews for the job.
It's the boards fault for hiring her and then firing her in such a manner. Rice did the job she said she was going to do.
Totally agree that the blame lies with the board.
They either did not ask the right questions in the interview or did not conduct any research into her.
I do, however, think that Rice is a trouble-maker who aimed to promote her own agenda.
Hmmmm....
She was very open about what her theatrical style and feelings are, before and during her tenure. The Board signed off on it. 'Agenda' makes it sound like the board was blindsided ( which I certainly don't think they were)
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 27, 2017 8:46:41 GMT
Totally agree that the blame lies with the board.
They either did not ask the right questions in the interview or did not conduct any research into her.
I do, however, think that Rice is a trouble-maker who aimed to promote her own agenda.
Hmmmm....
She was very open about what her theatrical style and feelings are, before and during her tenure. The Board signed off on it. 'Agenda' makes it sound like the board was blindsided ( which I certainly don't think they were)
I suspect we'll be left with the board's truth and Rice's truth and not the truth.
It certainly will go down in history as the oddest appointment in British theatre history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 8:56:05 GMT
Totally agree that the blame lies with the board.
They either did not ask the right questions in the interview or did not conduct any research into her.
I do, however, think that Rice is a trouble-maker who aimed to promote her own agenda. *hovers finger over the 'like' button* *goes to press it* *snatches hand back like it's been scalded* |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 8:57:06 GMT
I suspect we'll be left with the board's truth and Rice's truth and not the truth.
It certainly will go down in history as the oddest appointment in British theatre history.
Until I take over the Nash from Rufus Norris of course. |
|
