|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 17:30:25 GMT
Although it feels somewhat mean-spirited to celebrate someone being out of a job, I'm utterly delighted! We've celebrated all afternoon! And now I hope Shakespeare's Globe returns to its original remit. Gosh. That really does seem mean-spirited. Breathtakingly so in fact.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 25, 2016 17:32:15 GMT
Ironically will probably now be more likely to go next season to experience some more Emma Rice theatre whilst I can. Sad state of affairs as it all seems so clumsily handled, presumably no workable middle ground could be found which was what I'd hoped for, some of the more traditional alongside the more experimental.
Can whoever takes over leave the new added seats for those lucky few in the groundling queue though as they're just a great addition.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Oct 25, 2016 17:34:14 GMT
Let us hope that no one applies to become Artistic Director. An appointment by this Board would be career suicide, and the appointee would be ostracised by the rest of the profession. We need Mark Rylance and Dominic Dromgoole to join everyone else, including the RSC, in condemning this Board. We need Lucy Bailey, director of Comus which starts previewing this week, to publicly attack the Board. This is the biggest theatre news story of my lifetime. It's outrageous. Calm down dear!
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Oct 25, 2016 17:38:26 GMT
Let us hope that no one applies to become Artistic Director. An appointment by this Board would be career suicide, and the appointee would be ostracised by the rest of the profession. We need Mark Rylance and Dominic Dromgoole to join everyone else, including the RSC, in condemning this Board. We need Lucy Bailey, director of Comus which starts previewing this week, to publicly attack the Board. This is the biggest theatre news story of my lifetime. It's outrageous. The RSC ? Why should their useless board get involved ? The RSC were entirely responsible for the Globe's success actually according to Greg Doran "When the RSC left London the felling of that great oak enabled smaller saplings to grow towards the light ..." I see Rylance has condemned the RSC recently and said he'll not work there again, for sure he'll be on board when yo4u march on the Globe. Well to be fair thats easy for him to say! He hasnt worled there since 1989 snd i seriously doubt he is on any list of alumni they want to bring back😉
|
|
4,567 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Oct 25, 2016 17:47:30 GMT
Why employ someone who openly admits that they don't love Shakespeare as much as a Globe Usherette? Why employ someone with 'radical' directing techniques ?
I don't her work but I dislike what is happening much more
Edit *like*
|
|
834 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by bordeaux on Oct 25, 2016 17:50:18 GMT
He was the director... My other-half and I spotted him in the bar at the Wyndhams recently and she had to stop me for going other to tell him what I thought of it! Oh right. He also appeared in it for RSC and was well-reviewed. Mark Rylance was a superb Ulster Benedick opposite Janet McTeer in a 1993 production by Matthew Warchus, a truly wonderful production of the play, which I saw on Shaftesbury Avenue (Queen's, I think). Produced by Thelma Holt. Makes one long to see Warchus and Rylance work together again (they did a brilliant True West at the Donmar and Boeing Boeing, I think).
|
|
|
Post by emicardiff on Oct 25, 2016 18:10:37 GMT
Although it feels somewhat mean-spirited to celebrate someone being out of a job, I'm utterly delighted! We've celebrated all afternoon! And now I hope Shakespeare's Globe returns to its original remit. Gosh. That really does seem mean-spirited. Breathtakingly so in fact. Yes, I really hope Grit never finds themselves out of work with an expected contract cut short. Yes Rice has a good reputation, and the industry largely seems on her side. But it's a bloody tough industry, and she clearly had been offered what looked like a secure job for some years, no matter what that is a personal and professional blow. Even if I hated her work, I would not wish that on anyone. I'm 100% fine with people wanting The Globe back to 'how it was' though I would argue, that no, it never was a single type of proudction so there's no actual definitive 'Globe Production' to go back to in that sense. Do I think the whole place did need a bit of a kick up the arse? personally yes, I do. Do I think the productions individually were awful before? Not at all, but personally I'm also open to change. (For anyone who watched The Good Wife I feel like in this thread I should constantly be stating 'In my opinion your honour')
|
|
20 posts
|
Post by grit on Oct 25, 2016 19:01:02 GMT
'Yes, I really hope Grit never finds themselves out of work with an expected contract cut short.' just for the record, I've been self-employed on and off since 1986 and have had work cut short, disappear, and had clients who didn't pay; i've made my own employment appear from nothing because i believe with wit and wisdom where is the status of 'out of work'?
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Oct 25, 2016 19:17:15 GMT
I hope Emma will soon find the job that suits well her appetites for radicalism and the one she and her employer will be comfortable with. But I too couldn't hold back my joy all day.. For me she was absolutely ruining the place.. Glad The Board realised that but a bit too late, init? Wondering the same thing as Someone in a tree (great name, btw) she surely expressed her ideas and vision before in a prosess of a new AD search.. They should appoint Jamie Parker - he was running for the job at the final stage. Would be a bold choice as well
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Oct 25, 2016 19:23:36 GMT
grit,
great big post earlier on! Voiced exactly the opinion I have. Cheers!
|
|
5,571 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 25, 2016 19:24:44 GMT
HG get a grip. And let us remember that Ms Rice said at the start that she didn't know much Shakespeare. Interestingly, Rylance didn't think Willie wrote the plays though I do think he made a decent job of acting in and producing 'em. Can we have someone who loves Shakespeare, the bloke from Stratford, who knows Shakespeare but who is open to new ideas and research and who has an inkling of business acumen. ( job description for any job imo really)
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Oct 25, 2016 19:32:36 GMT
Although Rylance doesn't think it's Will it's safe to say he still loves the plays dearly (obviously) - he is just open to reasonable doubt as any thinking human being should be I suppose.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 25, 2016 20:03:52 GMT
There is reasonable doubt and reasonable doubt, I'd put the authorship 'question' at the same level as the Loch Ness monster existing. Rylance goes way beyond that level and it diminishes him and other sceptics once you do your own research into the pile of evidence that William Shakespeare of Stratford being the author is added up.
Much more interesting and backed up by analysis is the extent of collaboration, Marlowe for the Henry VI plays, Middleton's later additions to All's Well and Macbeth and now that Shakespeare did, indeed, have a hand in Arden of Faversham.
|
|
4,028 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 25, 2016 20:29:55 GMT
I love Rylance and Jacobi as actors, but they do show that great actors make for terrible literary historians.
However, at least the reason why they don't believe that Shakespeare wrote the plays is that they just love and admire them so much that they can't believe they were written by a commoner with limited formal education. If they loved the plays less they probably wouldn't be nutty enough to believe that anyone else wrote them. So I forgive them.
Glad to see I'm not the only one wondering what the problem is with the Globe attracting tourists. It was built because of a tourist, after all. I'm sure we've all been to theatres as tourists before. It's some strange form of snobbery that denigrates an audience for being tourists rather than locals.
|
|
5,495 posts
|
Post by Baemax on Oct 25, 2016 22:02:17 GMT
I can forgive Rylance, as he is something of an eccentric, but Derek Jacobi - one of our great acting knights - is himself the son of a tobacconist, and he can't bring himself to believe that an imaginative and well-educated glove-maker's son might also be a great writer? f*** *that* elitist bullsh*t.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Oct 25, 2016 22:08:43 GMT
It's some strange form of snobbery that denigrates an audience for being tourists rather than locals. The Globe "playing to tourists" means that people are going there as a tourist attraction, to tick it off the list and look at the lovely authentic Shakespearean aeroplanes overhead and concrete underfoot.
|
|
4,028 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 25, 2016 22:21:20 GMT
So you're saying that people with no previous interest in theatre go to the Globe to watch a play, and quite possibly enjoy the experience, but that this is a bad thing?
But everyone has been falling over themselves to praise Emma Rice for 'attracting a new audience'.
Do we only want the 'right sort' of new audience now? If the new audience is on holiday, are we not interested in attracting them?
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Oct 25, 2016 22:24:18 GMT
How is she going to be able to work for the next year with all this drama going on. 'Carry on, but we hate what you are doing!'
It seems all Shakespeare is equal - some is more equal than others.
|
|
1,175 posts
|
Post by joem on Oct 25, 2016 22:25:43 GMT
My first visit to a West End theatre was as a tourist. I have been going back for forty years now.
It is interesting how some people want to feel they are part of a cultural elite because we go to plays. But at the end of the day theatres, even the subsidised ones, are businesses with doors open to anyone who will pay; the more who pay the merrier because it guarantees the continuity of what we love. I don't care if they are locals, tourists, theatre fanatics or economic migrants. All are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Oct 25, 2016 22:28:55 GMT
So you're saying that people with no previous interest in theatre go to the Globe to watch a play, and quite possibly enjoy the experience, but that this is a bad thing? But everyone has been falling over themselves to praise Emma Rice for 'attracting a new audience'. Do we only want the 'right sort' of new audience now? If the new audience is on holiday, are we not interested in attracting them? No point responding to this. You're clearly just concocting fantasised ridiculous arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Oct 25, 2016 22:32:35 GMT
But at the end of the day theatres, even the subsidised ones Shakespeare's Globe is a not-for-profit Trust, so it's neither subsidised nor a business. That's at the root of today's news issue. Individual Board members and major donors are too disruptively influential because of its structure.
|
|
230 posts
|
Post by hal9000 on Oct 25, 2016 22:41:56 GMT
I love Rylance and Jacobi as actors, but they do show that great actors make for terrible literary historians. And, this is not a trend. There's only one Shakespeare, one person who is several times the world's most performed playwright. A single outlier of man without the expensive education of an aristocrat melding astonishing insight into the human condition into a populist entertainment form? Just the one? If you think about it, it's not really implausible at all. They are tacky enough to go to the extent of travelling by low-cost airlines! And worse, *shudder* coaches!
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Oct 26, 2016 0:02:41 GMT
Maybe Shakespeare was the Loch Ness Monster (on drunken dare from Marlowe)? While we're discussing outlandish theories. What next for her though? All the places she could go (Is The Gate still looking for someone) are really small and I don't think that would be helpful to take such a big step backwards. Maybe becoming AD of touring company in the short term before moving on to somewhere that suits her style. The Gate announced Ellen McDougall as new AD a couple of months ago (unless you mean the Gate in Dublin, which just announced Selina Cartmell as their new AD last month).
|
|
959 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 26, 2016 1:27:51 GMT
But at the end of the day theatres, even the subsidised ones Shakespeare's Globe is a not-for-profit Trust, so it's neither subsidised nor a business. That's at the root of today's news issue. Individual Board members and major donors are too disruptively influential because of its structure. Exactly. It was donors threatening to pull their £££ if she didn't go that has resulted in this. So so sad.
|
|
4,608 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Oct 26, 2016 2:50:22 GMT
So you're saying that people with no previous interest in theatre go to the Globe to watch a play, and quite possibly enjoy the experience, but that this is a bad thing? But everyone has been falling over themselves to praise Emma Rice for 'attracting a new audience'. Do we only want the 'right sort' of new audience now? If the new audience is on holiday, are we not interested in attracting them? Good point. One thing you'll notice here is when people start calling a theatre person by their first name only - Emma this and Emma that - then positions are pretty entrenched.
|
|
1,175 posts
|
Post by joem on Oct 26, 2016 6:34:01 GMT
But at the end of the day theatres, even the subsidised ones Shakespeare's Globe is a not-for-profit Trust, so it's neither subsidised nor a business. That's at the root of today's news issue. Individual Board members and major donors are too disruptively influential because of its structure. A not-for-profit Trust still depends on punters, it is a decision on where the money goes to rather than where it comes from. No punters, no theatre.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Oct 26, 2016 6:35:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by emicardiff on Oct 26, 2016 7:35:20 GMT
So you're saying that people with no previous interest in theatre go to the Globe to watch a play, and quite possibly enjoy the experience, but that this is a bad thing? But everyone has been falling over themselves to praise Emma Rice for 'attracting a new audience'. Do we only want the 'right sort' of new audience now? If the new audience is on holiday, are we not interested in attracting them? I think it's very fair to say there's a vocal contingent at the Globe (in terms of audiences, though they'd consider themselves far more important than that) who are VERY concerned with the RIGHT SORT of people. The kind of audiences that will tell tourists the wrong time to turn up to the groundling queue so they don't get a spot for one example, and the kind of people who after my first and only groundling experience at closing weekend last year put me off ever wanting to go there again. There are a group of very snobby superior people who think 'their' Globe and 'Their' way of doing Shakespeare is the only way. And that's really sad, and makes me really angry.
Of course equally there are groups of dedicated Globe attendees/fans who have been going for years, are open minded both to the productions and don't mind (heaven forbid) new audiences coming to see shows there.
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by ldm2016 on Oct 26, 2016 8:03:03 GMT
I want tourists to come to see plays at The Globe. We should feel immensely proud that people from all around the World want to come to London and whilst there see a Shakespeare play. Immensely proud.
However, they are coming to see Shakespeare performed properly not comedy versions of Hamlet or Cymbeline with street "dancing". We have a duty to preserve Shakespeare for future generations and preserve it in a manner similar to the way we received it. That is not to say, as I have said on this thread, that there is no room for modern interpretations of Shakespeare, but simply that The Globe should be the defender of Shakespeare in London and not a platform for directors who admit they don't like or care about his work to pervert our culture's greatest works.
|
|
5,495 posts
|
Post by Baemax on Oct 26, 2016 8:07:51 GMT
I don't see how a fresh interpretation of a play is something that Shakespeare needs "defending" from. Also, there's no reason not to inject comedy into Hamlet, it's got quite a good quantity of jokes, some of which are even funny by 21st century standards.
|
|