RSC becoming irrelevant

Thinking further about this community thing...

It seems inconsistent and perhaps hypocritical that the RSC is taking on large projects that are arguably alienating 'the community', like the cruise ship venture, and the Lydia and Manfred Gorvy Theatre. To me those kind of activities say "we're mainly here for the wealthy and powerful", because they are doing private shows for those who can afford them, and pandering to the vanity of wealthy benefactors: like it or not, theatre names tell us something about the values of the organisations behind them.

Presumably building that outdoor theatre also allowed wealthy private individuals to influence the policy of a publicly-funded organisation, because it would be astonishingly poor management if the decision to open that theatre didn't go hand in hand with the decision to leave the Swan and Other Place closed long term, and delay reopening the RST.

I don't think any of that says "we're all about the community". They didn't (as far as I am aware) hold public meetings to ask the community what they want from the RSC. Like it or not they are an economic organisation, and part of the justification for arts funding is always about its impact in terms of jobs, tourism and tax revenue. Keeping the theatres closed will be affecting the Stratford community in material ways like job losses and business closures, and the social impact of a declining economy.

All of that makes the Henry VI amateur involvement seem rather hollow and self-indulgent. A bit of a 'let them eat cake' gesture when real members of the community will be struggling to cope financially without a thriving, fully open RSC.

If they went either way - elitist or completely community focused - it might be understandable if it was consistently applied and part of a new long term and published strategy. Then ACE and the RSC's traditional audience, which I suppose is somewhere in the middle, could decide whether the new RSC is something they want to stick with or not. But recent activity suggests a series of ad hoc decisions with little consistent planning, which is disrespectful to audiences, cavalier about the RSC's legacy and role as a large cultural organisation, ignoring its economic influence in the region, and inappropriate to be spending public money without clarity of purpose.

There's also a lack of clarity about whether the RSC still sees itself as a training/nurturing organisation for theatre skills, which is one of the justifications for their large subsidy, because of the impact of their training on the wider theatre, tv and film industry.

So, given that they've moved a long way from the RSC's original aims, I think we (funders, ticket buyers, 'the people of England') deserve some kind of statement about what the company now stands for, what their values and long term goals are, and how they see those being funded.

Perhaps this is a controversial comment, but to many tourists and London-centric theatre goers, the RSC has been irrelevant for a long time. They are not going to venture up to Stratford. Without Shakespeare though Stratford would be just an ordinary market town, so it is sad to see it is suffering.

The RSC needs a strong Stratford AND London base. Whilst the Barbican may not have been ideal, their lack of a base has meant there is no “loyal” audience. The Globe now occupies that space, even though I think there is room for two Shakespeare based theatres. But again, The Globe were smart in creating the smaller Sam Wanamaker Theatre.

The RSC could do a deal with the Bridge (thrust stage) or another theatre for a longer season. I know we have been here before - Barbican abandoned and then partially re occupied, or their attempt at limited West End seasons.

Many members of the public think of Shakespeare just as something from school, and will only be drawn in by star names. Certainly this has worked in the past - such as RSC Hamlet and David Tennant. At least a London base will help them to re-establish themselves, and be bold.

I suppose the community element is a way to connect with the Stratford area, and bring in more diverse audiences, so this is a decent start. But they need to be bolder.

Interesting point about twitter paplazaroo. I see a lot of this, and you can't blame theatres for using whatever resources are available to them. But it often feels like they think social media is part of their core job, and that they're creating important conversations, raising awareness of issues, etc, when actually they're just chatting to a selective bunch of people who already share their values. It ticks boxes, but it's nothing to do with being creative, challenging or whatever. It's arrogant and patronising to think they can make social change outside of their basic function of connecting with audiences through performance. Here's an example which I couldn't understand why it irritated me at the time, because I agree with the overall message. But there is nothing specific here about who was saying that Shakespeare's plays only belong to white people and where this uproar happened. It got lots of back pats on the RSC's social media, but what does that achieve? www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/shakespeare-racism-rsc-black-cast-b1996955.html. If people objected to the casting, what will challenge that is a very high quality production, not a twitterstorm.

I agree a funding re-think is probably needed, as oxfordsimon says, though the current government isn't one I'd trust to deliver this, or to understand what the problems are and what is important to preserve/support, so I'm not sure what the solution is.

I do think outreach work is important, but not at the expense of quality, and it needs to be meaningful and not disengage existing audiences. Re Jan's point about Erica's Dream, I found this quote from her, which kind of sums up the problem for me. It's great that taking part changed someone's life, but...how did that benefit audiences?

"There is a woman called Becky Morris who played Bottom for me in A Midsummer Night's Dream in Nottingham. She had enjoyed drama at school, but hadn’t done very much and let it go. She was working in a sandwich bar and someone invited her along to an amateur group and she went along in trepidation. She found that she really loved it. Two things happened as a result; she started working as a teaching assistant in a school (and she’s still doing this, specialising in drama) and she became only the second woman in the history of the RSC to play Bottom. She’s like a female Les Dawson – completely amazing. So her confidence levels and her sense of what she’s capable of went through the roof. How she thinks about the rest of her life and what she will hand onto her son – a sense of creativity and courage."

That's Erica's example of how Shakespeare changed someone's life and it's about participation, so what does that say about the RSC as a company putting on productions for people to watch, people whose lives might potentially be changed by that experience? Like many people, being an audience member has affected the way I think, feel and see the world in all kinds of big and small ways. Isn't that more core to the function of theatre than to be life changing for the actors? And if quality or coherence is compromised, that is also reducing the chance of making those connections with audiences which potentially have that life changing impact. It worries me that the while RSC is merrily going about it's do-gooding thing (Look! We've turned a humble sandwich maker into a creative teaching assistant!) they are not giving enough thought to all of the connections they might be damaging, and the lives they are no longer changing, because they're turning off the people that previously bought their tickets.

the strength of feeling is clear.It is certainly time for RSC enquiry into mission and execution.
many lives have been changed by watching earlier RSC.......that was their unique purpose.
Many other arts organisations put teaching at the core....teachers no longer hold the responsibility to do it properly and need support.
H6 looks like a big community coach trip gasp.....many light years from the Boyd ensemble.
RSC and NT poor shadows of former danger days.

Jan - where is the information or photo for the Cornish cast? In fairness though, Cornwall is surely less ethnically diverse than the Midlands. They do seem to be trying to make some effort, but of course they also need bring in the audiences too.

On the subject of audiences, like most theatres, these remain prodominantly white and middle aged. Same as the National, unless it is a play aimed at a more diverse audience. I certainly noticed I was one of only a few non-Caucasian faces on my two visit to the RSC in Stratford. 

amp.theguardian.com/stage/2022/jan/26/rsc-recruits-amateurs-from-six-regions-as-shakespeares-people-of-england