|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 28, 2019 7:22:57 GMT
3* from me for this one. It's competent and the set/costumes are nice but it's very under-cast (I've never seen a RSC version of the play with no "name" actor), one-paced, and there's the usual staging problems of transferring a thrust-stage production to proscenium arch which means actors tend to walk on, stand motionless centre stage facing front to deliver their lines, then walk off. Greg Doran used to be an excellent director of Shakespeare but in recent years I've found his work tending towards the dull and old-fashioned with no real insights or interpretation.
Anyway, if you fancy seeing this (and it is a good production if you've never seen the play before) or the other two in the season I recommend turning up and asking for a £10 day seat, they normally will sell you the best available remaining seat, of which there should be plenty, and in my case that was right in the middle of the premium super-seat section of the front stalls.
|
|
4,961 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Nov 28, 2019 10:11:30 GMT
In 2004 I was spolit with Simon McBurney's production at the Nash which is of my all time theatrical greats.
The RSC production is very serviceable but its never takes off. I greatly enjoyed Lucy Phelps performance but that's about it. The upper two levels appeared to be empty and quite a few empty seats after the interval. The RSC Barbican residency is proving to be a real snore fest that old theatre queen's like me hark back to a golden age at a different venue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 28, 2019 10:43:22 GMT
In 2004 I was spolit with Simon McBurney's production at the Nash which is of my all time theatrical greats. The RSC production is very serviceable but its never takes off. I greatly enjoyed Lucy Phelps performance but that's about it. The upper two levels appeared to be empty and quite a few empty seats after the interval. The RSC Barbican residency is proving to be a real snore fest that old theatre queen's like me hark back to a golden age at a different venue. Yes that NT one was excellent. I also liked the Almeida one with Rory Kinnear, but the play is rarely without interest. I'm not sure the RSC snore fest is really us just looking back with rose-tinted spectacles - by any criteria you like to use that Romans season they transferred was appallingly dull, and Doran's history cycle the same for me. One problem is that their more successful Stratford classical productions seem to be in the Swan (like Volpone and so on) so they rarely transfer, we just get their plain-vanilla big Shakespeare plays with the more interesting rare ones omitted (Two Gentlemen, Timon, King John, Troilus) - there is surely a London audience for those but not in such a big venue. I feel Doran has run out of steam as a director and an artistic director and their failure to establish a core London audience in a venue suitable for both RST and Swan transfers is a symptom of that. |
|
4,961 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Nov 28, 2019 12:38:05 GMT
I agree with you on Histories and Romans both were dull.
Out of the recent lot I greatly enjoyed Tempest but after that...
Shame Two Nobles never transferred as it was really good. In the old days did Swan productions transfer?
Expensive I know but it's a shame the temporary theatre never became a permanent fixture in London as it would make transfers much easier and hopefully successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 28, 2019 12:55:02 GMT
I agree with you on Histories and Romans both were dull. Out of the recent lot I greatly enjoyed Tempest but after that... Shame Two Nobles never transferred as it was really good. In the old days did Swan productions transfer? Expensive I know but it's a shame the temporary theatre never became a permanent fixture in London as it would make transfers much easier and hopefully successful. They used to transfer them to The Pit at the Barbican but that wasn’t ideal either, they needed lots of re-staging. They tried West End theatres for them too. Doran’s idea of a new London thrust stage theatre mid-way in size between RST and The Swan able to accept transfers from either is good but will never be funded - they had a theatre built to their exact specifications at the Barbican and then walked out so why should anyone fund them to build another ? |
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Nov 28, 2019 17:05:52 GMT
I agree with you on Histories and Romans both were dull. Out of the recent lot I greatly enjoyed Tempest but after that... Shame Two Nobles never transferred as it was really good. In the old days did Swan productions transfer? Expensive I know but it's a shame the temporary theatre never became a permanent fixture in London as it would make transfers much easier and hopefully successful. They used to transfer them to The Pit at the Barbican but that wasn’t ideal either, they needed lots of re-staging. They tried West End theatres for them too. Doran’s idea of a new London thrust stage theatre mid-way in size between RST and The Swan able to accept transfers from either is good but will never be funded - they had a theatre built to their exact specifications at the Barbican and then walked out so why should anyone fund them to build another ? What idea? Never heard Doran mention that, and as you say noone will fund it anyway. Im not sure there is a London audience anymore, the Globe is now established, more off west end and fringe theatres are doing Shakespeare. Stratford is itself much more accessible from the London area than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Unless there is a real u turn with Doran's successor i dont see the situation changing, it must after all have the Boards approval. |
|
4,961 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Nov 28, 2019 18:46:42 GMT
Agreed learfan. London has more than enough theatres. Perhaps the RSC should head back upto Newcastle. Is the Northern Powerhouse still a thing or is relocated to London? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 19:13:26 GMT
Doran’s idea of a new London thrust stage theatre mid-way in size between RST and The Swan able to accept transfers from either is good but will never be funded - they had a theatre built to their exact specifications at the Barbican and then walked out so why should anyone fund them to build another ? How do both Stratford houses compare to the Bridge? The Bridge is a similar capacity to the main Royal Shakespeare Theatre (900 seats vs 1040) and in a thrust layout would be quite similar to the Bridge. Both have three levels of seating with side seats in the upper level. The Swan is smaller with a capacity of 450, similar layout. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 28, 2019 19:53:14 GMT
Thought as much... anyone else now thinking what I'm thinking... What I’m thinking is that the Bridge is doing just fine without importing dull RSC Shakespeares. Cut RSC funding by 50% and let them abandon London, fine (their funding was increased in the first place to let them establish a permanent London presence at the Aldwych). |
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Nov 28, 2019 20:32:44 GMT
Thought as much... anyone else now thinking what I'm thinking... What I’m thinking is that the Bridge is doing just fine without importing dull RSC Shakespeares. Cut RSC funding by 50% and let them abandon London, fine (their funding was increased in the first place to let them establish a permanent London presence at the Aldwych). That was almost 60 years ago, how is that relevant now?! |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 29, 2019 7:33:35 GMT
What I’m thinking is that the Bridge is doing just fine without importing dull RSC Shakespeares. Cut RSC funding by 50% and let them abandon London, fine (their funding was increased in the first place to let them establish a permanent London presence at the Aldwych). That was almost 60 years ago, how is that relevant now?! Yes, the RSC are very good at that, just allowing the basis for their funding to be entirely forgotten. For example, the Arts Council were very opposed to them building the Swan and extracted a binding commitment from them that the building and all productions there would be entirely self-funding, that none of their subsidy money would be used to run the Swan and it had to turn a profit based on box office and other sources. You think they still bother with that commitment ? |
|
421 posts
|
Post by schuttep on Nov 29, 2019 10:03:33 GMT
I read this morning that the RSC had a £2.45 m profit last year, thanks to transfers such as Matilda. That could be put to good use by other theatres around the country.
Or am I being blasphemous if I suggest ticket prices could be reduced slightly - or even kept at the same level for a while?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 29, 2019 10:13:36 GMT
I read this morning that the RSC had a £2.45 m profit last year, thanks to transfers such as Matilda. That could be put to good use by other theatres around the country. Or am I being blasphemous if I suggest ticket prices could be reduced slightly - or even kept at the same level for a while? Odd because today I saw an interview with Doran saying because their Les Mis revenue was ending their funding of educational activities was under threat. I would have thought the best use of the spare money would be to do more productions, the number they do per year is at a historically very low number - do a full repertoire in The Other Place for example which they seem to have never properly opened again despite promises to the contrary when they closed it for redevelopment (another broken promise by them). |
|
4,961 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Nov 29, 2019 13:55:42 GMT
After reading some of the reviews for Boy in the dress perhaps Doran and the RSC should give up Shakespeare all together
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 29, 2019 15:58:59 GMT
After reading some of the reviews for Boy in the dress perhaps Doran and the RSC should give up Shakespeare all together If Doran’s made a success for the RSC financially with that fair play to him - I’m old enough to remember Terry Hands’ attempt with the inexplicable “Carrie”. |
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Nov 29, 2019 16:40:24 GMT
So..if Boy In The Dress does give RSC a boost in confidence,perhaps now they will put the same energy into the key repertoire.Funny that all the fuss is for this rather than the core role of company.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 30, 2019 11:16:15 GMT
So..if Boy In The Dress does give RSC a boost in confidence,perhaps now they will put the same energy into the key repertoire.Funny that all the fuss is for this rather than the core role of company. But what does "the RSC" mean in that context ? There is no real company any more, no group of younger actors that Doran has established and brought through over a number of seasons (unlike every one of his predecessors), similarly he doesn't use the existing Associate Artist actors established during previous regimes much either. Likewise there is no real group of directors who work there year after year directing one or two shows each year (a system Doran himself benefitted from greatly under his predecessors) - he just mostly brings in freelances every year, directors who work at NT and other places too who have no particular allegiance to the RSC. On the artistic side the actual "company" whose confidence could have been boosted is two or three people. I should say this erosion of the company ethos was planned by Doran, it was one of the first things he announced when he took over. |
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Nov 30, 2019 12:07:37 GMT
you are right in all this
unfortunately
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2019 17:10:29 GMT
Thought this was ok, big improvement on Shrew anyway. But agree it’s very undercast. Very sparsely attended. I booked online for £10 this morning - front row stalls (probably returns) but they’d also dynamically priced some of the back couple of stalls rows to £10. Also seemed to have taken the upper levels off sale although the dress and upper circle seemed to be open
TodayTix rush tickets also available for £10, these were also rear stalls
|
|
