|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 2, 2022 8:26:48 GMT
I think the debate about “safe” or “experimental” programming is largely irrelevant. It’s about quality. If they put on very good plays with very good direction and very good acting they’ll sell out. If they don’t they won’t. I’ve seen “safe” plays there which were very poorly directed and acted and there were seats available. Word of mouth plays a part (even more so at NT).If this play had been better more people would have gone to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 2, 2022 11:35:51 GMT
There is no doubt that quality is absolutely vital. But there are titles that will sell on title alone almost irrespective of the casting or the director.
That is what I term a safe choice. Doesn't mean the production can be weak but rather reflects that some pieces will almost always attract very good advance bookings making them useful income generators to balance with titles that require a lot more effort and energy to sell
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 2, 2022 14:28:19 GMT
There is no doubt that quality is absolutely vital. But there are titles that will sell on title alone almost irrespective of the casting or the director. That is what I term a safe choice. Doesn't mean the production can be weak but rather reflects that some pieces will almost always attract very good advance bookings making them useful income generators to balance with titles that require a lot more effort and energy to sell In principle a play about Mary Seacole should be towards the “safer” end of the spectrum, she’s been covered at some length by just about every primary school in the London area for at least the past decade so is not unfamiliar. But of course it would need to be a play actually suitable for a younger audience which this doesn’t seem to have been. |
|
