|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:06:39 GMT
And why does he direct so few shows himself? Two a year is in fact a high rate for an artistic director of a massive arts organisation: 2015/16 Everyman & wonder.land 2016/17 The Threepenny Opera & My Country; a work in progress 2017/18 Mosquitoes & Macbeth I would hardly count My Country And Wonder.land Was recycled from MIF anyway Other AD manage to direct shows elsewhere at the same time He has zero media presence And the output at the NT is also dire What exactly is he doing |
|
45 posts
|
Post by publius on Jun 7, 2017 13:07:10 GMT
Long time reader, first time poster and keen to point out that I am not associated with this production in any way before I make my first post!
I saw the play pre-cuts and felt that some of the criticism was unfair.
It wasn't perfect - by any stretch of the imagination - and it was clear that some alterations to the text were required, but it was far from being the absolute disaster some have claimed.
The acting is wonderful (especially from Anne Marie-Duff, as expected) and the direction/production is wonderful in places too (especially the scenes reminiscent of The Wicker man). The story itself isn't bad and is enhanced by a read of the programme notes pre-performance.
I understand that some will find the language offensive or shocking at times, but it's 2017 and its not anything, for the most part, that won't be heard on TV post-watershed or in pubs across the length of the country. It certainly isn't at odds with the demon, femme fatale Duff is playing either.
If there is a problem it would be the transformation in the second half isn't explained and those who haven't read the programme may struggle to understand what/who Duff is possibly playing. However, the fact that she is wearing all red in the first half and pure white in the second should be an indication that something super-natural is happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:08:22 GMT
That's what you get For putting a non Oxbridge candidate In a job they aren't designed for The people responsible for Common are Jeremy Herrin of Headlong and Ben Power, NT Associate Director, Head of New Work. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:12:44 GMT
Long time reader, first time poster and keen to point out that I am not associated with this production in any way before I make my first post! I saw the play pre-cuts and felt that some of the criticism was unfair. It wasn't perfect - by any stretch of the imagination - and it was clear that some alterations to the text were required, but it was far from being the absolute disaster some have claimed. The acting is wonderful (especially from Anne Marie-Duff, as expected) and the direction/production is wonderful in places too (especially the scenes reminiscent of The Wicker man). The story itself isn't bad and is enhanced by a read of the programme notes pre-performance. I understand that some will find the language offensive or shocking at times, but it's 2017 and its not anything, for the most part, that won't be heard on TV post-watershed or in pubs across the length of the country. It certainly isn't at odds with the demon, femme fatale Duff is playing either. If there is a problem it would be the transformation in the second half isn't explained and those who haven't read the programme may struggle to understand what/who Duff is possibly playing. However, the fact that she is wearing all red in the first half and pure white in the second should be an indication that something super-natural is happening. The problem is much deeper than this Using Ann Marie Duff An actress who is positively attracted to the most pretentious sorts of plays To draw in crowds To the biggest stage at the venue Under the Travelex And offering a show Which needed cutting by 1/3 And necessitated cancelling of a preview to do that Running in tandem with a another Travelex piece Which is so stuck up it's own arse It went blind from faeces Is the issue That these shows are running through the summer months at the Oliver is hilarious To seasoned theatre goers And professionals It indicates poor planning Programming Scheduling And literary skills |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:13:01 GMT
Long time reader, first time poster and keen to point out that I am not associated with this production in any way before I make my first post! I saw the play pre-cuts and felt that some of the criticism was unfair. It wasn't perfect - by any stretch of the imagination - and it was clear that some alterations to the text were required, but it was far from being the absolute disaster some have claimed. The acting is wonderful (especially from Anne Marie-Duff, as expected) and the direction/production is wonderful in places too (especially the scenes reminiscent of The Wicker man). The story itself isn't bad and is enhanced by a read of the programme notes pre-performance. I understand that some will find the language offensive or shocking at times, but it's 2017 and its not anything, for the most part, that won't be heard on TV post-watershed or in pubs across the length of the country. It certainly isn't at odds with the demon, femme fatale Duff is playing either. If there is a problem it would be the transformation in the second half isn't explained and those who haven't read the programme may struggle to understand what/who Duff is possibly playing. However, the fact that she is wearing all red in the first half and pure white in the second should be an indication that something super-natural is happening. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:15:43 GMT
Im going two weeks saturday, prefer to make my own mind. Norris has had a double disaster in the Olivier now with this and Salome. Lot of pressure on the autumn/winter to sort things oit. That's what you get For putting a non Oxbridge candidate In a job they aren't designed for Wait was 'had to go to Oxbridge' in the job description?  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:16:37 GMT
But on the plus side, the poster is faaaaabulous. Every cloud.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:17:48 GMT
Long time reader, first time poster and keen to point out that I am not associated with this production in any way before I make my first post! I saw the play pre-cuts and felt that some of the criticism was unfair. It wasn't perfect - by any stretch of the imagination - and it was clear that some alterations to the text were required, but it was far from being the absolute disaster some have claimed. The acting is wonderful (especially from Anne Marie-Duff, as expected) and the direction/production is wonderful in places too (especially the scenes reminiscent of The Wicker man). The story itself isn't bad and is enhanced by a read of the programme notes pre-performance. I understand that some will find the language offensive or shocking at times, but it's 2017 and its not anything, for the most part, that won't be heard on TV post-watershed or in pubs across the length of the country. It certainly isn't at odds with the demon, femme fatale Duff is playing either. If there is a problem it would be the transformation in the second half isn't explained and those who haven't read the programme may struggle to understand what/who Duff is possibly playing. However, the fact that she is wearing all red in the first half and pure white in the second should be an indication that something super-natural is happening. Thanks for sharing your experience, it's nice to hear from people who have seen it. The Guardian also has a slightly kinder review that pays tribute to what it was trying to achieve, even if it doesn't manage it. On other comments - I don't feel like the programmers could have seen the probs with Salome coming. It's an established play with a director with an excellent track record. We all fail sometimes, it's just bad luck to have two perceived disasters in rotation in the same theatre. I know I keep saying this, but if there was a formula for success, everyone would follow it. I'd rather the NT took risks than fell back on big mainstream musicals just to get bums on seats - that's not what it's there for. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:17:49 GMT
That's what you get For putting a non Oxbridge candidate In a job they aren't designed for Wait was 'had to go to Oxbridge' in the job description? No Perhaps it should have been Given the current state of affairs at the NT |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:21:23 GMT
Long time reader, first time poster and keen to point out that I am not associated with this production in any way before I make my first post! I saw the play pre-cuts and felt that some of the criticism was unfair. It wasn't perfect - by any stretch of the imagination - and it was clear that some alterations to the text were required, but it was far from being the absolute disaster some have claimed. The acting is wonderful (especially from Anne Marie-Duff, as expected) and the direction/production is wonderful in places too (especially the scenes reminiscent of The Wicker man). The story itself isn't bad and is enhanced by a read of the programme notes pre-performance. I understand that some will find the language offensive or shocking at times, but it's 2017 and its not anything, for the most part, that won't be heard on TV post-watershed or in pubs across the length of the country. It certainly isn't at odds with the demon, femme fatale Duff is playing either. If there is a problem it would be the transformation in the second half isn't explained and those who haven't read the programme may struggle to understand what/who Duff is possibly playing. However, the fact that she is wearing all red in the first half and pure white in the second should be an indication that something super-natural is happening. Thanks for sharing your experience, it's nice to hear from people who have seen it. The Guardian also has a slightly kinder review that pays tribute to what it was trying to achieve, even if it doesn't manage it. On other comments - I don't feel like the programmers could have seen the probs with Salome coming. It's an established play with a director with an excellent track record. We all fail sometimes, it's just bad luck to have two perceived disasters in rotation in the same theatre. I know I keep saying this, but if there was a formula for success, everyone would follow it. I'd rather the NT took risks than fell back on big mainstream musicals just to get bums on seats - that's not what it's there for. Salome had actually already been performed At Washington Although this was heavily altered for the NT More likely the success of Les Blancs Went to their heads And she was given free reign Sadly as she is such a arrogant and self referential director We ended up with this A good AD will have their finger on the pulse whilst shows are being developed and would not allow such awful pieces to come to the main stage They are also capable of pulling a show as necessary To save 3/4 empty seats The NT has curtailed runs of shows plenty of times before |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:22:41 GMT
Wait was 'had to go to Oxbridge' in the job description? No Perhaps it should have been Given the current state of affairs at the NT I've no strong opinion on Norris personally. But I don't think an Oxbridge education is a marker of being able to run a theatre, or indeed being competent in any other job. But I'd imagine you think differently. Heaven forbid there are other educational institutions just as capable of providing an education. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:23:57 GMT
Everyman
Wonder.land
Threepenny Opera
Salome
Common
All stupid choices for the Olivier
And none of them a proper success
None anywhere near sold out
Most of them Travelex shows
Go
Figure
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:24:52 GMT
Read the books by Peter Hall, Richard Eyre and Nicholas Hytner! I think the perceived problem may be linked to the move away from the previous NT system of having a team of Associste Directors, who have much less administrative responsibilities and who each directed a couple of shows a year, to a project-based system where every production is a one-off event. The only active, regularly directing Associate now is Dominic Cooke, and Follies will only be his third show in three years. Marianne Elliott has left and Howard Davies has briefly brought back for one show but sadly died while making it. Lyndsey Turner was named as an Associate Director, and directed one of Rufus Norris's opening shows, but then promptly vanished from the NT stage, although she's due back there shortly. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:25:06 GMT
No Perhaps it should have been Given the current state of affairs at the NT I've no strong opinion on Norris personally. But I don't think an Oxbridge education is a marker of being able to run a theatre, or indeed being competent in any other job. But I'd imagine you think differently. Heaven forbid there are other educational institutions just as capable of providing an education. There has been a track record Of Oxbridge graduates Running the NT Of course others can take the job And make a massive success like Norris 😂😂😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:27:19 GMT
Read the books by Peter Hall, Richard Eyre and Nicholas Hytner! I think the perceived problem may be linked to the move away from the previous NT system of having a team of Associste Directors, who have much less administrative responsibilities and who each directed a couple of shows a year, to a project-based system where every production is a one-off event. The only active, regularly directing Associate now is Dominic Cooke, and Follies will only be his third show in three years. Marianne Elliott has left and Howard Davies has briefly brought back for one show but sadly died while making it. Lyndsey Turner was named as an Associate Director, and directed one of Rufus Norris's opening shows, but then promptly vanished from the NT stage, although she's due back there shortly. I have read Hytners book Or at least have it on audiobook Lovely I can't imagine Norris Ever acheiving this And being able to have material to produce such a work of his own I have been dear LOYAL sister Of the NT for 20 years It helped me through many difficult Times I went there as a student I have been to parties there Eaten there Rested in the foyers Attended alone With family and friends Have lovely memories Of shows like MFL And Funny Thing Happened It's just sh*t now I used to want to be buried inside Not any more |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:29:27 GMT
No Perhaps it should have been Given the current state of affairs at the NT I've no strong opinion on Norris personally. But I don't think an Oxbridge education is a marker of being able to run a theatre, or indeed being competent in any other job. But I'd imagine you think differently. Heaven forbid there are other educational institutions just as capable of providing an education. Olivier...? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:30:49 GMT
Everyman Wonder.land Threepenny Opera Salome Common All stupid choices for the Olivier And none of them a proper success None anywhere near sold out Most of them Travelex shows Go Figure The first three, in your list, all used the Olivier brilliantly, and each of them drew me back to see the next Rufus Norris show in that venue. Okay, your personal taste is clearly different to mine, but it's unreasonable to expect everything to suit you personally. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:31:49 GMT
I've no strong opinion on Norris personally. But I don't think an Oxbridge education is a marker of being able to run a theatre, or indeed being competent in any other job. But I'd imagine you think differently. Heaven forbid there are other educational institutions just as capable of providing an education. Olivier...? Went to oxford |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:32:48 GMT
I used to want to be buried inside Not any more [This comment was removed before posting] |
|
898 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Jun 7, 2017 13:35:13 GMT
No he didn't. He went to a secondary school in Oxford. Didn't go to university. |
|
45 posts
|
Post by publius on Jun 7, 2017 13:35:53 GMT
Long time reader, first time poster and keen to point out that I am not associated with this production in any way before I make my first post! I saw the play pre-cuts and felt that some of the criticism was unfair. It wasn't perfect - by any stretch of the imagination - and it was clear that some alterations to the text were required, but it was far from being the absolute disaster some have claimed. The acting is wonderful (especially from Anne Marie-Duff, as expected) and the direction/production is wonderful in places too (especially the scenes reminiscent of The Wicker man). The story itself isn't bad and is enhanced by a read of the programme notes pre-performance. I understand that some will find the language offensive or shocking at times, but it's 2017 and its not anything, for the most part, that won't be heard on TV post-watershed or in pubs across the length of the country. It certainly isn't at odds with the demon, femme fatale Duff is playing either. If there is a problem it would be the transformation in the second half isn't explained and those who haven't read the programme may struggle to understand what/who Duff is possibly playing. However, the fact that she is wearing all red in the first half and pure white in the second should be an indication that something super-natural is happening. Thanks for sharing your experience, it's nice to hear from people who have seen it. The Guardian also has a slightly kinder review that pays tribute to what it was trying to achieve, even if it doesn't manage it. On other comments - I don't feel like the programmers could have seen the probs with Salome coming. It's an established play with a director with an excellent track record. We all fail sometimes, it's just bad luck to have two perceived disasters in rotation in the same theatre. I know I keep saying this, but if there was a formula for success, everyone would follow it. I'd rather the NT took risks than fell back on big mainstream musicals just to get bums on seats - that's not what it's there for. I want the NT to have plays that don't work with everyone. I also want them to have plays that divide critics and attendees alike. If they are achieving that it means that they have taken bold risks and are showing an array of plays. In other words, doing what a National Theatre should be doing.
I go to about 90% of productions at the NT and, as expected, like some, love others, dislike some, hated others. That means that they are doing something right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:36:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:37:41 GMT
!? Like my farming grandfather? - Oi went to Oxforrd, y'knouw ... [Long, stunned silence] - Fer a noight fer me unnymoon. [Laughs loudly, displaying complete absence of teeth] |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:38:04 GMT
Im going two weeks saturday, prefer to make my own mind. Norris has had a double disaster in the Olivier now with this and Salome. Lot of pressure on the autumn/winter to sort things oit. That's what you get For putting a non Oxbridge candidate In a job they aren't designed for Why is his status as "non Oxbridge" a problem? I genuinely don't understand. Are you just being provocative for the sake of it? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:38:17 GMT
Thanks for sharing your experience, it's nice to hear from people who have seen it. The Guardian also has a slightly kinder review that pays tribute to what it was trying to achieve, even if it doesn't manage it. On other comments - I don't feel like the programmers could have seen the probs with Salome coming. It's an established play with a director with an excellent track record. We all fail sometimes, it's just bad luck to have two perceived disasters in rotation in the same theatre. I know I keep saying this, but if there was a formula for success, everyone would follow it. I'd rather the NT took risks than fell back on big mainstream musicals just to get bums on seats - that's not what it's there for. I want the NT to have plays that don't work with everyone. I also want them to have plays that divide critics and attendees alike. If they are achieving that it means that they have taken bold risks and are showing an array of plays. In other words, doing what a National Theatre should be doing.
I go to about 90% of productions at the NT and, as expected, like some, love others, dislike some, hated others. That means that they are doing something right.
Agree 100000% |
|
