The Olivier Problem

[cirque]

I suggest there is no problem with the Olivier whatsoever.

Yet many problems.

The Olivier space is designed for epic work and large themes.Worlds great drama in reimagined and engaging styles.From earliest days in this space much magnificent work has been developed covering Greek Drama,Shakespeare,Jacobean,Restoration and contemporary.Of course many large musicals have also won acclaim-Follies being a perfect example.

However many Directors fail to grasp the requirements of the space.I recall at RSC no young director wanted the main house and fought for The Other Place or Swan Theatre.This fear spread to actors feeling unable to cope with the large space and experiments in reducing scale developed.

There remains an essential fear in planning that in order to be successful one has to ensure mass appeal and often results in catastrophe as with the current Macbeth.The calls should not be for Norris to go but to engage in a discussion with Directors who want to think big and be bold.Hall,Nunn,Hytner,etc....and many more have swept audiences along with stunning work born from a passion.War Horse is a prime example of a bold drama that took everyone by surprise...all ages....

As many of todays writers love smaller spaces for engagement there is little opportunity to test the large scale.Very bad idea to place new writer onto Olivier....

There is some rather silly dialogue going on......programme Olivier as community space.What utter nonsense for.perhaps,our greatest arena for theatre.The answer is to consider the great and ,of course,potential discoveries planning a repertoire that excites and challenges.The design factor could be explored through a semi permanent space design to house a repertoire as with early Travelex days.This would certainly allow easier changeovers and flexibility.


Of course,we can all plan academic seasons as we dont have to balance the books but there is a rich seam of work waiting to be developed on the Olivier stage and surely Directors who want to engage with this democratic space.

Great Drama will reignite the Olivier.Lets not talk of the space being the problem,rather accept that here we have one of the greatest spaces anywhere and its time to bring it back to the fore.

[theatrelover123]

The sentiment running through this post comes through much stronger if you play Land of Hope and Glory or the New World Symphony whilst reading it. Honestly. Try it

[n1david]

Richard Eyre doesn't agree with you that the space isn't the problem.
www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2018-03-18/culture/rufus-norris-macbeth-and-the-curse-of-the-olivier-richard-eyre-v9lcwkc7w

Eyre, whose diaries sound recurrent yelps of pain about the Olivier, delineates its defects to me by email. “If you sit in the centre of the centre stalls block, you think, ‘This is thrilling, there’s a real feeling of event.’ But if you sit at the side, you feel marginal to the action; and if you sit in the circle, you feel disenfranchised — remote, detached and unable to hear properly.

“The volume of the auditorium is much larger than it needs to be to accommodate a comparatively small number of people. A disproportionate volume of space needs to be animated by the actors’ voices to make them audible — to be exact, nine times the ideal volume. To compound the difficulty, there are large areas made of concrete, a material that is acoustically unfriendly.

“If an auditorium dwarfs the human body, there’s something wrong with it, because you can’t deny the human form at the heart of drama.”

[kathryn]

Hasn't the use of mics in the Olivier since Nunn's time overcome most of the acoustic difficulties?
I've never had a problem hearing actors up in the circle - even in the back row.

[Jan]

Mar 23, 2018 12:16:33 GMT n1david said:

Richard Eyre doesn't agree with you that the space isn't the problem.
www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2018-03-18/culture/rufus-norris-macbeth-and-the-curse-of-the-olivier-richard-eyre-v9lcwkc7w

Eyre, whose diaries sound recurrent yelps of pain about the Olivier, delineates its defects to me by email. “If you sit in the centre of the centre stalls block, you think, ‘This is thrilling, there’s a real feeling of event.’ But if you sit at the side, you feel marginal to the action; and if you sit in the circle, you feel disenfranchised — remote, detached and unable to hear properly.

“The volume of the auditorium is much larger than it needs to be to accommodate a comparatively small number of people. A disproportionate volume of space needs to be animated by the actors’ voices to make them audible — to be exact, nine times the ideal volume. To compound the difficulty, there are large areas made of concrete, a material that is acoustically unfriendly.

“If an auditorium dwarfs the human body, there’s something wrong with it, because you can’t deny the human form at the heart of drama.”

Eyre is deflecting blame onto the audience as theatre folk frequently do - people in the circle don’t like things there because they feel disenfranchised, not because of his own rubbish production of Macbeth for example. I sat in the circle for his own original production of Guys and Dolls and didn’t feel disenfranchised at all - how come ?

[Jan]

Mar 23, 2018 18:14:35 GMT @theatremonkey said:

The auditorium is still big. It's the directors that have got small.

Sorry, but maybe it is the new mentality not to think large. Hall, Hytner, Nunn all had no problems. I agree with others on here - get with the programme and find stuff that will work in the space. If you stage it, they will come.

There were also some good productions there during the Eyre regime including one of the best ever uses of the Olivier stage in "The Shaughraun" directed by Howard Davies. Davies also directed an outstanding "Hedda Gabler" in there a couple of years later thus demonstrating you don't necessarily need a "big" play to make it work in there. Also Eyre's own "Hamlet" with Daniel Day-Lewis (later Ian Charleson) was OK in there (however his "Bartholomew Fair" with a big cast was really awful).

[Deleted]

Revivals, adaptations, musicals, all of them tend to work in the Olivier and directors know how to make them do so, direction is not the problem. Have a new play written for it and writers have no experience and little sympathy with the nature of the space, though, that’s partly down to how economics have virtually destroyed the large cast play and the nature of modern playwriting as it has evolved as a result.

Problem is, you aren’t going to change that unless you change the wider theatre economy and that isn’t happening, at least anytime soon.

If I was AD I’d just not programme new plays in there, just revivals, adaptations and musicals, and I’d run the successes as long as I could to maximise income.

[Jon]

Mar 23, 2018 19:55:01 GMT @cardinalpirelli said:

Revivals, adaptations, musicals, all of them tend to work in the Olivier and directors know how to make them do so, direction is not the problem. Have a new play written for it and writers have no experience and little sympathy with the nature of the space, though, that’s partly down to how economics have virtually destroyed the large cast play and the nature of modern playwriting as it has evolved as a result.

Problem is, you aren’t going to change that unless you change the wider theatre economy and that isn’t happening, at least anytime soon.

If I was AD I’d just not programme new plays in there, just revivals, adaptations and musicals, and I’d run the successes as long as I could to maximise income.

I think new plays can work at the Olivier, Oslo would have worked well there given the Broadway production was done at the Vivian Beaumont which like the Olivier is a thrust stage.

[caa]

The Olivier has a habit of finding out directors, such as in 2010 when Michael Grandage directed Danton's Death, possibly the wrong play to be staged but it also seemed that Grandage who had seemed to have the midas touch somehow was found wanting.

Personally I wish the National would rethink things especially as they do seem to be having issues in finding plays to stage in the Olivier, why not restage classic productions that had worked before,such as Frankenstein, Ghetto, Guys and Dolls, Summerfolk or a Greek play like the Oresteia. This was something that the National did in the past and other National Theatres do.

[Mark]

I don’t think It’s necessarily the venue. I mean I saw London Road in the Olivier and it’s worked just fine.

That said there’s been a lot of Duds in there over the years...

[showgirl]

I don't claim to have the answer to the programming question but surely from an audience viewpoint, the Olivier is much the nicest of the NT's 3 spaces? I hate the boxy, cramped feeling of the Lyttelton, yet that is where any production I wish to see in one of the 2 larger spaces seems to be, and the Dorfman, even after the revamp, has some terrible sight-lines and many seats in which it is painful to sit due to the physical contortion required to see the stage (eg having to lean forward and often sideways, too); the Dorfman also has no subsidised seats so though interesting new work is often programmed there, you have to risk paying more for what turns out to be a turkey or missing out because you hung back.

[Deleted]

Okay...we’re having this debate because the Big O has lately hosted flops in quick succession. We must not forget that the real issue is with text and Norris’s failure to understand and interpret dramatic text. Common and St George did not fail because of the space. They failed because each needed deeper thought and a few more drafts. The directors are so keen to be auteurs that they either disregard the importance of the text or sabotage it in order to pursue their own artistic agenda (as is the case with Noriss’s Macbeth).

[Jan]

Mar 24, 2018 4:46:21 GMT showgirl said:

I don't claim to have the answer to the programming question but surely from an audience viewpoint, the Olivier is much the nicest of the NT's 3 spaces? I hate the boxy, cramped feeling of the Lyttelton, yet that is where any production I wish to see in one of the 2 larger spaces seems to be, and the Dorfman, even after the revamp, has some terrible sight-lines and many seats in which it is painful to sit due to the physical contortion required to see the stage (eg having to lean forward and often sideways, too); the Dorfman also has no subsidised seats so though interesting new work is often programmed there, you have to risk paying more for what turns out to be a turkey or missing out because you hung back.

During the design phase the Lyttelton was the space that was most compromised - Laurence Olivier wanted a smaller proscenium arch theatre with fewer seats but politically to justify the spend of public money they adjusted it to be larger with higher capacity, the decision was commercial rather than artistic. 

[Deleted]

Mar 24, 2018 9:04:52 GMT @cleoskryker said:

Okay...we’re having this debate because the Big O has lately hosted flops in quick succession. We must not forget that the real issue is with text and Norris’s failure to understand and interpret dramatic text. Common and St George did not fail because of the space. They failed because each needed deeper thought and a few more drafts. The directors are so keen to be auteurs that they either disregard the importance of the text or sabotage it in order to pursue their own artistic agenda (as is the case with Noriss’s Macbeth).

It’s the plays. Better dramaturgy would help, yes, but Hytner had the same problem. Nunn piled musicals in there too, which sort of proves the point.  Directors are coping perfectly well with revivals and musicals so why blame them?

What was the last new play (not an adaptation) programmed in the Olivier that went on to have a successful transfer?

Here’s a quick reminder of the last decade (including adaptations, the list would be even smaller without them)

New plays for the Olivier -
2008 - Her Naked Skin, Fram
2009 - England People Very Nice, Nation
2010 – Welcome to Thebes
2011 – Frankenstein, 13
2012 – Nothing……
2013 - Emil & the Detectives
2014 - James Plays (barely counts as it's NTS driven), Behind the Beautiful Forevers
2015 - Everyman, Treasure Island
2016 - Nothing.....
2017 - St George & the Dragon. Salome, Common

[Deleted]

Next time anyone complains about the triple flop of Salome, Common, and George, please remind them that Fram, England People Very Nice, and Nation happened in quick succession under the Hytner regime.

[jasper]

There did not seem to be a problem under Hall. Even Eyre did some good productions there, like Schweyk and Gill did a good Danton. I remember a few good productions by Peter Wood. Even Hare had some success as a director there. So maybe it takes a special kind of director which are not made these days.

[Deleted]

Mar 24, 2018 10:05:59 GMT @cardinalpirelli said:

Mar 24, 2018 9:04:52 GMT @cleoskryker said:

Okay...we’re having this debate because the Big O has lately hosted flops in quick succession. We must not forget that the real issue is with text and Norris’s failure to understand and interpret dramatic text. Common and St George did not fail because of the space. They failed because each needed deeper thought and a few more drafts. The directors are so keen to be auteurs that they either disregard the importance of the text or sabotage it in order to pursue their own artistic agenda (as is the case with Noriss’s Macbeth).

It’s the plays. Better dramaturgy would help, yes, but Hytner had the same problem. Nunn piled musicals in there too, which sort of proves the point.  Directors are coping perfectly well with revivals and musicals so why blame them?

What was the last new play (not an adaptation) programmed in the Olivier that went on to have a successful transfer?

Here’s a quick reminder of the last decade (including adaptations, the list would be even smaller without them)

New plays for the Olivier -
2008 - Her Naked Skin, Fram
2009 - England People Very Nice, Nation
2010 – Welcome to Thebes
2011 – Frankenstein, 13
2012 – Nothing……
2013 - Emil & the Detectives
2014 - James Plays (barely counts as it's NTS driven), Behind the Beautiful Forevers
2015 - Everyman, Treasure Island
2016 - Nothing.....
2017 - St George & the Dragon. Salome, Common


I am still convinced that it is the plays.  Most musicals tell powerful stories which have been tried and tested over decades.  Both Common and St George were well directed and had quite high production values but (Common especially) just didn't hold you as a piece of storytelling.  One of the reasons that Ferryman is so powerful is that it stands out as a very well written play in a world of "post dramatic" theatre.  Mendes's work on the play is brilliant but it's almost invisible because he has used his great gifts as a director in service of the text and performances. With a great play space shouldn't be too much of a problem.  Think about the Greek tragedies.  Didn't they fill huge auditoria with initially just three actors? 

[Deleted]

Mar 24, 2018 11:21:22 GMT @cleoskryker said:

Mar 24, 2018 10:05:59 GMT @cardinalpirelli said:

I am still convinced that it is the plays.  Most musicals tell powerful stories which have been tried and tested over decades.  Both Common and St George were well directed and had quite high production values but (Common especially) just didn't hold you as a piece of storytelling.  One of the reasons that Ferryman is so powerful is that it stands out as a very well written play in a world of "post dramatic" theatre.  Mendes's work on the play is brilliant but it's almost invisible because he has used his great gifts as a director in service of the text and performances. With a great play space shouldn't be too much of a problem.  Think about the Greek tragedies.  Didn't they fill huge auditoria with initially just three actors? 

Greek ‘plays’ were actually proto-musicals. It’s only as that element has been lost that we think of them as we do.

Mendes has, I think, only directed once in the Olivier (SRB Lear), preferring the Lyttelton, which is also where the Lehman Trilogy is going.

[jasper]

If it is only the plays that would mean a revival of a play with good dramaturgy would succeed there. What then of the present revival of Macbeth? Does that not show it is not only the plays?

[Deleted]

Mar 24, 2018 12:56:04 GMT jasper said:

If it is only the plays that would mean a revival of a play with good dramaturgy would succeed there. What then of the present revival of Macbeth? Does that not show it is not only the plays?

What I am trying to say is that the directors dramaturgical work on the play is so important. Dramaturgy is not just about editing a play or making it better. It is also about understanding a play, it’s deeper structures and its socio-political resonances. Directors need an understanding of how plays work and make that accessible to an audience. No one will convince me that Norris thought deeply enough about the Scottish play. I could have done better. And that’s saying something.

[foxa]

In terms of new plays, I think it is a big jump for establishing playwrights who have mainly been working in small spaces with tiny casts to suddenly make the leap to what works in the Olivier. It's something that could be more proactively addressed (I heard of another major theatre that worked with new playwrights on ways to fill a big space, for example, showing them how voice teachers work with actors in those spaces.) On the other hand, Macbeth certainly should have worked there - it seemed a lack of a coherent vision, etc., that hurt that.

[Deleted]

Mar 24, 2018 12:56:04 GMT jasper said:

If it is only the plays that would mean a revival of a play with good dramaturgy would succeed there. What then of the present revival of Macbeth? Does that not show it is not only the plays?

That’s a straw man argument, nobody claims that all revivals are directed well. The necessary comparison is between the average of successful revivals recently versus new plays and most people would be able to name numerous Olivier revivals that have been successful.

[sf]

Mar 23, 2018 12:16:33 GMT n1david said:

Richard Eyre doesn't agree with you that the space isn't the problem.
www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2018-03-18/culture/rufus-norris-macbeth-and-the-curse-of-the-olivier-richard-eyre-v9lcwkc7w

Eyre, whose diaries sound recurrent yelps of pain about the Olivier, delineates its defects to me by email. “If you sit in the centre of the centre stalls block, you think, ‘This is thrilling, there’s a real feeling of event.’ But if you sit at the side, you feel marginal to the action; and if you sit in the circle, you feel disenfranchised — remote, detached and unable to hear properly.

“The volume of the auditorium is much larger than it needs to be to accommodate a comparatively small number of people. A disproportionate volume of space needs to be animated by the actors’ voices to make them audible — to be exact, nine times the ideal volume. To compound the difficulty, there are large areas made of concrete, a material that is acoustically unfriendly.

“If an auditorium dwarfs the human body, there’s something wrong with it, because you can’t deny the human form at the heart of drama.”

Richard Eyre's perspective in that article, I suspect, is that of someone who hasn't sat in the cheap seats in any large theatre for a very, very long time. I saw Follies from the front row of the stalls and the back row of the circle (not simultaneously). They were different experiences, yes, although the ticket price for both was exactly the same. In some ways, in terms of the ability to see the overall stage picture, the view from the back of the circle was actually better than the view from the front row. I certainly did not feel "disenfranchised" in the back row of the circle, any more than I felt disenfranchised watching, say, Eyre's revival of Guys and Dolls, or Trevor Nunn's Oklahoma!, or Racing Demon/Murmuring Judges/The Absence of War, or the late Steven Pimlott's stunning production of The Miser from up there - but then, when I go to the theatre I am used to not sitting sixth row centre in the stalls.

[joem]

Eyre speaks like a true successful, wealthy middle-class director. A good play is the first essential to enjoy a production. Which is why you can watch Shakespeare's finest on a beach, underground or a tight-rope and still enjoy it. And yet we are told the latest Macbeth at the Olivier is a failure because of the play? Sorry but that is nonsense.

I haven't seen the new Macbeth but I did see Common and that failed because it was bad. It may have been a play of ideas but if you can't get those ideas through in an interesting and engaging manner you might be better off trying another medium.

[Deleted]

I don't get the fixation on this Macbeth as I haven't, and am not going to, see it but this is about the Olivier in a much wider context isn't it? What succeeds generally and what fails, not one specific production?

It's frustrating as I can't actually get to the Eyre/Jays article. I wouldn't mind being able to read it as it seems to have got some people's backs up. Can anyone register for the Times website? It always says my email address isn't valid (it is, but at least it means I'm spared the wretched rantings of Treneman past her introductory poison).