|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 25, 2017 8:36:26 GMT
It's almost amusing how some people seem to want the NT to appeal to their personal taste while also crowing on about some kind of mythical national appeal or service. Ah ... there you go again .... playing the man instead of the ball ..... Programming at the Donmar, a single small space, is not comparable to programming at the NT with three houses and a vastly bigger budget so the two can't be equated. The claim that the requirement for the NT to have wide appeal is "mythical" flatly contradicts an actual NT spokeswoman who said (in answer to Billington's complaint that they have eliminated the lesser-known classical repertoire) the organisation aimed to put together a programme "that would appeal to the widest possible audience, taking in many genres". Actually you have put forward a straw man argument because no-one at all is asking for EVERYTHING at the NT to appeal to their personal taste, just that SOMETHING there should occasionally appeal to them - currently those mostly interested in the lesser-known classical repertoire have nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 8:41:24 GMT
It's almost amusing how some people seem to want the NT to appeal to their personal taste while also crowing on about some kind of mythical national appeal or service. Ah ... there you go again .... playing the man instead of the ball ..... Programming at the Donmar, a single small space, is not comparable to programming at the NT with three houses and a vastly bigger budget so the two can't be equated. The claim that the requirement for the NT to have wide appeal is "mythical" flatly contradicts an actual NT spokeswoman who said (in answer to Billington's complaint that they have eliminated the lesser-known classical repertoire) the organisation aimed to put together a programme "that would appeal to the widest possible audience, taking in many genres". Actually you have put forward a straw man argument because no-one at all is asking for EVERYTHING at the NT to appeal to their personal taste, just that SOMETHING there should occasionally appeal to them - currently those mostly interested in the lesser-known classical repertoire have nothing. You know what's more boring than the same old argument on this thread? the same old posters coming at me no matter what I post. Dr, Professor, Good Sir, I could agree 100% with anything you post and you'd still find a way to call what I said 'wrong' somehow. You'd argue black was white and snow was warm just to quote me and say I was wrong. I'm not sure why, but there we go. I'm not wasting time arguing you actual points, because myself and others have gone over this time and time again on this thread. I (and others) disagree that the NT 'has' to programme as much 'classical' repertoire as some expect (and indeed what is that definition) and the overriding argument here from most of us on the other side is that it's too soon to judge Norris' tenure. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 25, 2017 9:31:06 GMT
I (and others) disagree that the NT 'has' to programme as much 'classical' repertoire as some expect (and indeed what is that definition) and the overriding argument here from most of us on the other side is that it's too soon to judge Norris' tenure. Not just programme all that familiar 'classical' repertoire*, and work with established talent*, but also discover and develop productive working relationships with exciting new talent*, be experimental, but at the same time revive and preserve older less-known works*. And have commercial hits* and reflect the state of the nation. *Unless, of course, they're American.
I remember well the moaning about Hytner needing to go and let new blood come in towards the end of his tenure - people couldn't wait for Rufus to take over. I'm sure the same happened at the end of Nunn's tenure. Now they're being held up as a standard of excellent to aspire to. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 9:37:13 GMT
Not just programme all that familiar 'classical' repertoire*, and work with established talent*, but also discover and develop productive working relationships with exciting new talent*, be experimental, but at the same time revive and preserve older less-known works*. And have commercial hits* and reflect the state of the nation. *Unless, of course, they're American.
I remember well the moaning about Hytner needing to go and let new blood come in towards the end of his tenure - people couldn't wait for Rufus to take over. I'm sure the same happened at the end of Nunn's tenure. Now they're being held up as a standard of excellent to aspire to. Ooh yeah I forgot. Right so just so I've got this straight, for when I take over from Rufus.... -Familiar classical repertoire. Obviously done in a traditional way, no boundary pushing or innovative directors (bye Ivo) -Work with the BEST current working directors and also discover the next big thing, who we will know is the next big thing from the very first production. -Revive all the 'classics'. But no foreign muck. This is Brexit Britain after all, and America well what have they contributed to drama anyway? -Reflect the state of the Nation. Unless the state of the Nation is somewhat experimental, not written and directed by a known talent and/or somehow doesn't correspond to established tastes. -No Americans, living or dead. -Musicals, also seem to be out. Sorry Imelda. -Programme new work. Except not in the Olivier. Also not the Lyttleton. But why are all the new plays shoved in the Dorfman. -No Americans. -Be Nick Hytner. Except for the times we hated him too. Have I covered it? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 10:47:15 GMT
Goodness. All this fuss and fervour over Rufus.
What will you all be like when I take over the Nash?
Oops. Cat out of the bag.
My bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 10:53:39 GMT
Goodness. All this fuss and fervour over Rufus. What will you all be like when I take over the Nash? Oops. Cat out of the bag. My bad. At least when you take over the OTHER 'How Long?' question will quickly be answered, we all know the pictures are out there somewhere  |
|
898 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Sept 25, 2017 13:07:38 GMT
I went to Oslo yesterday afternoon and Mosquitoes in the evening, both greeted with passionate applause. Follies was on next door. No sign of a theatre in crisis there. The crisis, or problem at least, is artistic - two new plays and an American musical is very narrow programming and it's set to continue - of course I understand that if you happen to like that it's fine but you can't project your own tastes on to the rest of us. Whether there's a financial crisis is hard to say - time will tell. I certainly wasn't referring to the finances and I agree the crisis has been artistic, but I'm hoping that these three hits are harbingers of good things in the future. I'm sure he's aware of the gaps in the scheduling. There's nothing I'd like more than for Norris to announce a production of Aeschylus' The Persians and something by Schnitzler or SRB returning to play John Gabriel Borkman. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 13:29:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 13:36:40 GMT
Facts?! We won't have your sort around here sir |
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 25, 2017 15:29:11 GMT
Both American and foreign stuff acceptable. What with technology we could even have foreign stuff performed in foreign with translations on a screen. O my what a thought! Minor classics yes. Major classics yes yes. Musicals of course - they are national and theatre aren't they? So ok Imelda you're in again. But please no poor plays, no preaching plays a la late Hare or more recently that England crap. You know the one. No upsey downsey the sake of it. Put plays in appropriate spaces. ( so maybe hire Olivier out to a circus and Lyttleton to corporate presentations)
And what do they do in Berlin? Sorry I must have missed that. I'm away in foreign land at the moment.
|
|
1,087 posts
|
Post by alicechallice on Sept 25, 2017 16:36:39 GMT
Goodness. All this fuss and fervour over Rufus. What will you all be like when I take over the Nash? Oops. Cat out of the bag. My bad. Year-long revivals of "Naked Boys Reading" in all 3 theatres? Starring Tom Bateman, Jonathan Bailey and Marc Elliott? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 16:55:31 GMT
Goodness. All this fuss and fervour over Rufus. What will you all be like when I take over the Nash? Oops. Cat out of the bag. My bad. Year-long revivals of "Naked Boys Reading" in all 3 theatres? Starring Tom Bateman, Jonathan Bailey and Marc Elliott? Ha! Naturally. I shall make it Nash policy that every production has to have at least one hot actor in it (preferably more). And they should be prepared to disrobe. The part will always call for it. The opening production will be Chekhov's 'Three Brothers' starring Tom, Jonny and Marc. Set in a nudist camp. Start as you mean to go on, I say. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 18:05:24 GMT
Well it's a bit rich to come blazing in with extreme positions on both Norris and Doran and then complain that the thread is 'poisonous'! It sure looked like you wanted to start a big argument and, believe me, this is nothing compared to some of the ruckuses seen on here.
Personally I found it patronising that we were being asked to judge by rules made up for others to follow but horses for courses and all that. Rather than moving the goalposts on that though*, why not address why so many successes have been pointed out and (as far as the available figures show) that this extends to the commercial realm? Why do your feelings seem to contrast with those of others and the facts as we have them? The counter argument has surely been to point those things out.
* and to ones that favour past over current, given that we know about Hytner's future but not Norris'.
|
|
77 posts
|
Post by tributary on Sept 26, 2017 19:20:40 GMT
I don't think they're extreme positions. There's certainly been a lot of negative press in the broadsheets about the Norris regime, and the feeling in the industry is hardly that it's a golden age.
It's not to do with whether my feelings contrast with anyone else's, either. I was trying to find a way of measuring the success of a regime against a previous one, and to take a look at the shows in that regime felt like a fair way of doing it. I'm very happy to look at some other rules too if you have better ideas. It is, after all, just a forum.
As to favouring past over current, I don't think you've understood; I've only noted shows from the period in which Hytner had been in post for as long as Norris currently has.
And as for the successes that have been pointed out, I have addressed that - compared to Hytner, very few of those Norris successes have garnered the kind of recognition, either in awards or in outbound transfers to other venues. They're successes, sure, but just not of the same size and scale.
I'd say the same thing about the artists you mention above, that very few of them on your list (many great ones though there are) have an actual relationship with the building beyond just doing one show there and then not returning. Hence my trying to measure it as in my last post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 19:54:09 GMT
Well the productions I chose appear to be superior to me and look likely to be more successful in the coming years than the Hytner ones you mentioned. I also believe that the names I mentioned are also as likely to hang around. I do seriously believe that, I'm not just being contradictory.
The point that you felt I'd misunderstood was not about 'favouring past over current' but that the past is looked on through the eyes of what came after. That's the point I was making, we know what happened with Hytner after his first couple of years, we can't yet know that with Norris.
Anyhow, we now have Kwei-Armah and Terry to be concerned about, I have worries about both but look forward to being proved wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 22:16:54 GMT
The ruckus here blew up in large part between posters with different opinions of the purpose and goal of the NT. And different Directors of the NT also have different objectives. It's not all about who has the longest transfer or who gets the highest star ratings from the national critics or who chooses directors of productions in the most explicitly hierarchical manner. It's also about whose stories the NT tells, to whom it endeavours to speak, which sectors of the theatre world it invites in to produce work, etc., etc.. Of course, the organisation must remain financially and operationally sustainable but that isn't the ultimate end. In my opinion, the philosophy and practice of the NT under Rufus Norris is a huge leap forward from Nicholas Hytner, but everyone will have their own personal views on that. It may be of some interest to reduce analysis of the NT to a numbers game but I feel that misses the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 7:43:52 GMT
I agree HG for me it's always been about the wider impact of the NT, a lot of which we don't see. That ranges from Education and outreach work to development of new work/new artists, some of which we won't see for years and may never know Rufus had a hand in, some of which we will see but not for a long time.
It's also, to get a bit philosophical, equally importantly about the failures- because if the failures in a financial sense or a reviews sense- are failures after taking an artistic leap, or on something that is hard-hitting or controversial well actually that's not so much a failure. To quote Sondheim 'the choice may have been mistaken the choosing was not' and I'd argue the NT has a responsibility to take leaps that might fail, in the name of 'art' or 'reflecting the world' or trying out a new creative team or whatever.
I think we started to get to a numbers game because some posters/arguments got into such tunnel vision that people thought using the hard facts might be able to sway the conversation back to something concrete (pardon the pun).
|
|
5,690 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 27, 2017 9:49:38 GMT
You are right - all of you 😄- it is not about the numbers.
It is just a shame that we do not anticipate a NT production with baited breath and curiosity. We just wonder if anyone will turn up. Unless that is there is a 'star' turn.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 27, 2017 10:19:44 GMT
we do not anticipate a NT production with baited breath and curiosity I was intrigued by Mosquitoes and Common, when they were announced - Common was an interesting failure and I really enjoyed Mosquitoes (which sold out minutes after public booking opened). I'm hoping to catch Barber Shop Chronicles if I can. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 27, 2017 11:01:49 GMT
You are right - all of you 😄- it is not about the numbers. It is just a shame that we do not anticipate a NT production with baited breath and curiosity. We just wonder if anyone will turn up. Unless that is there is a 'star' turn. I don't think I anticipate any production with baited breath and curiosity unless there's a 'star' turn - either within the cast or as one of the creatives - no matter where it is. In fact, I've managed to double-book myself for The Suppliant Woman at the Young Vic because I completely forgot I'd booked it at all! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 11:09:30 GMT
You are right - all of you 😄- it is not about the numbers. It is just a shame that we do not anticipate a NT production with baited breath and curiosity. We just wonder if anyone will turn up. Unless that is there is a 'star' turn. I don't think I anticipate any production with baited breath and curiosity unless there's a 'star' turn - either within the cast or as one of the creatives - no matter where it is. In fact, I've managed to double-book myself for The Suppliant Woman at the Young Vic because I completely forgot I'd booked it at all! Same- I may be a shallow person, but unless it's a play I know well and LOVE I pretty much only get super excited to see a 'star' actor or director piece. Maybe that's a judgement on me, but I feel like a lot of us book/respond that way. Like, I'm not going to get over-excited about say a historical exploration of sewer construction in London in the Dorfman, but if someone then told me James McArdle was in it I'd suddenly be waiting with VERY vested interest. Just in case anyone wants to write/direct that play. I book plenty of stuff without cast/creative excitement, but it's more out of curiosity and a general interest than yes an actual excitement (don't worry I've forgotten stuff I've booked as well...oops!!) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 11:15:46 GMT
Well I think I look forward to what's on at the Nash more than any other theatre really. I'm more likely to book for stuff that I don't know anything about there than at other theatres.
Obviously if there's a star hottie in it or someone from 'Game of Thrones' then I'm all over it like Joan Collins at a graduation ceremony.
|
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Sept 27, 2017 11:26:31 GMT
I don't think I anticipate any production with baited breath and curiosity unless there's a 'star' turn - either within the cast or as one of the creatives - no matter where it is. In fact, I've managed to double-book myself for The Suppliant Woman at the Young Vic because I completely forgot I'd booked it at all! Same- I may be a shallow person, but unless it's a play I know well and LOVE I pretty much only get super excited to see a 'star' actor or director piece. Maybe that's a judgement on me, but I feel like a lot of us book/respond that way. Like, I'm not going to get over-excited about say a historical exploration of sewer construction in London in the Dorfman, but if someone then told me James McArdle was in it I'd suddenly be waiting with VERY vested interest. Just in case anyone wants to write/direct that play. I book plenty of stuff without cast/creative excitement, but it's more out of curiosity and a general interest than yes an actual excitement (don't worry I've forgotten stuff I've booked as well...oops!!) I agree that it must be a personal thing, because instead I get excited more about the theme of the play. I was very excited to see Us/Them at the NT and Anatomy of a Suicide at the Royal Court and I am equally excited to see The Jungle and The Suppliant Women at the Young Vic without having a clue about the casting. I guess I have been disappointed by some 'star turns' so I am weary about seeing a play just because there is someone I like (mainly because after five minutes I start thinking: "Mm, ok, I have seen you, now I need a good reason to stay and listen"). Said that, tonight I will see Against because I love Ben Whishaw: I am excited to see him but now about the play :-) |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 27, 2017 11:29:56 GMT
By the way, The Suppliant Women is too sold out for me to exchange, so I am returning for credit. 25th Nov matinee, if anyone wants to ring up the Young Vic quick and book it!
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 27, 2017 11:34:10 GMT
Well I think I look forward to what's on at the Nash more than any other theatre really. I'm more likely to book for stuff that I don't know anything about there than at other theatres. I mean, obviously I book loads of stuff at the Nash (and elsewhere) that I know nothing about and has no stars - but it's more because it sounds interesting/intriguing than because I get breathlessly excited about it. Cheap tickets help. I'll try most things for a tenner. I guess I'm just not that into a theatre's 'brand' - I've never booked everything a theatre is doing in a season just because it's doing it. I don't expect everything a particular theatre puts on to appeal to me. In fact, I'd argue that if everything the Nash did appealed to me - a middle-class white woman in her mid-30s - then it would be doing something wrong. |
|
