2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 15, 2019 17:20:29 GMT
I did like Jessie Buckley's Juliet I've only seen her on TV / film thus far but she's excellent, one of my must-book-for actors. . She's been good when I've seen her on stage. It's not a play i'm drawn to but I've only seen it once and that was the disco dragon emo one so I feel it might be worth a second look. Not that I can' afford any seats I can see from any more in the Olivier of course, hopeful website haunting for me.
|
|
2,963 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 15, 2019 17:25:47 GMT
Not that I can' afford any seats I can see from any more in the Olivier of course, hopeful website haunting for me. Same here - crap eyesight so I'm going to have to try for the £15 - £20 front rows. Whatsonstage says it'll be NT Lived but I really want to see this lot on stage.
|
|
6,347 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 15, 2019 17:38:06 GMT
Two Guvnors was one of the best things I have ever seen. So Jack Absolute will be a must for me. Interesting that this is another co-written play. Young Marx was the same although that had a different co-writer.
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Nov 15, 2019 18:54:44 GMT
Glad I’m not the only one not rushing to book. Another Bean, another R&J ( still ok for the GCSE school groups) nothing stands out. I'll wait. NT is going nowhere fast under Norris from where im looking.
|
|
|
Post by justfran on Nov 15, 2019 19:03:49 GMT
ARGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. NOT ANOTHETR BLOOMING ROMEO AND JULIET!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Yeah but what a cast - defo one that will draw in a film and TV audience. They do look a bit old for teenagers though: I thought at 6-foot-something and nearly 30, Josh O'Connor was physically miscast as moping lovesick Marius in the BBC Les Miserables. But yes, I'll defo be booking for this. I agree, I think Jessie Buckley and Josh O’Connor will definitely draw people in. Good timing for this announcement with the new series of The Crown starting soon and Josh playing Princes Charles.
|
|
2,963 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 15, 2019 19:33:05 GMT
Good timing for this announcement Yes, I guess timed for it as the tickets won't be on sale till next year. Film 4 screened O'Connor's breakthough film God's Own Country this week too. Btw, I wonder if that second series of Taboo will ever happen? Given the cast commitments generally it doesn't look like it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 20:47:59 GMT
I’m confused- they are doing Romeo and Juliet and a play called Romeo and Julie?!? Have I got this wrong!? Surely I have!? What silly person is in charge if I haven’t? #ohpissoffrufus
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 15, 2019 21:56:48 GMT
The National's programming only started making proper sense to me when I thought of it as BBC1, BBC2 and BBC4 - BBC3 is now NT-Live It's got to appeal to everyone, and *everyone* is a lot broader nowadays (ID politics, diversity, everyone's a minority, etc). Reasonably reassured by the jarring contrasts of Hansard with Faith, Hope and Charity/The Antipodes. What I find striking is the footprint of the NT these days. Scroll through this lot, and that doesn't include the online digital developments : www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/whats-on . £100+ million a year in income and climbing. More new writing on the bigger stages so that's interesting.
I'd say it's *rebalancing* somewhat under relentless scrutiny from all sides.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Nov 15, 2019 23:10:08 GMT
They’re doing Romeo and Juliet, not one of my favourite Shakespeare.
Surprised they’re not doing Richard III considering they haven’t done it since 1992. Also a favourite for Shakespeare lovers.
|
|
2,352 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Nov 15, 2019 23:14:23 GMT
Glad I’m not the only one not rushing to book. Another Bean, another R&J ( still ok for the GCSE school groups) nothing stands out. I'll wait. NT is going nowhere fast under Norris from where im looking. Commercially it seems to be going great guns. It a had a 75% hit rate artistically Next year's season seems like it will crack on the same way.
|
|
3,092 posts
|
Post by Rory on Nov 15, 2019 23:41:12 GMT
I've been a bit underwhelmed in the recent past by some of the seasons but there are 5 shows I would love to see next year: The Visit Jack Absolute Flies Again The Welkin Manor All of Us
Strong casts, a lot of new writing.
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Nov 16, 2019 7:10:57 GMT
NT is going nowhere fast under Norris from where im looking. Commercially it seems to be going great guns. It a had a 75% hit rate artistically Next year's season seems like it will crack on the same way. Not sure what that stat means but each to their own, there is nothing here for me and that has been the case for some time at the NT.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 8:20:40 GMT
Yeah, nothing there to appeal enough to make me fork out to travel to London for it.
And I'm old now. I never need to see another Romeo and Juliet again, especially not another with all white & too old casting.
|
|
2,963 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 16, 2019 10:08:46 GMT
They’re doing Romeo and Juliet, not one of my favourite Shakespeare. It's popular with teachers / schools though, isn't it (it was in my day) and has actors who are popular from TV/film so I can totally see the logic here: here's already a buzz around it. As for Richard III that may be more controversial if it involves an able-bodied actor 'cripping up'.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 10:21:44 GMT
I remember loving R&J the first time I saw it (Mark Rylance and Georgia Slowe in the Swan, when I was 16) and really liking it the 2nd and 3rd time, and quite liking it after that... but I've seen lots of productions now I'm quite old, including ballets and modern dance and black/white and white/latino, modern/tudor/space/whatever spins on it, and I'm BORED. I did it for GCSE, it's a decent play and I'm glad new young people will see it and enjoy it but omg my life is too short to ever need to see it again. (Ditto Hamlet, Lear and maybe even Midsummer Night's Dream.)
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 16, 2019 10:32:42 GMT
They’re doing Romeo and Juliet, not one of my favourite Shakespeare. It's popular with teachers / schools though, isn't it (it was in my day) and has actors who are popular from TV/film so I can totally see the logic here: here's already a buzz around it. As for Richard III that may be more controversial if it involves an able-bodied actor 'cripping up'. Given that we know that the historical Richard was not massively affected by his scoliosis - being very able in battle - there is not much risk of a major casting backlash (and if there is, it will be from people who are intent on being outraged rather than understanding what is really important) But returning to R&J - it is by far my least favourite of the major tragedies. I have never managed to get through a performance without wishing Juliet would just skip to Act 5 to get it over with. The announced casting is not enough to make me interested enough to see it again.
|
|
2,963 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 16, 2019 11:25:27 GMT
the historical Richard was not massively affected by his scoliosis - being very able in battle - there is not much risk of a major casting backlash (and if there is, it will be from people who are intent on being outraged rather than understanding what is really important) The play's character isn't the historical version though, and I do think there is strong feeling now that 'cripping up' is becoming as unacceptable as 'blacking up', given that there are a lot of actors with disabilities who face discrimination in the industry (I know a writer who wasn't even able to see the play they'd written because the theatre wasn't physically accessible! Many theatres, esp. studio theatres and festivals, where young actors, writers, directors get started don't have access). The Donmar's Teenage Dick has cast actors with disabilities. Yes, I don't want a scenario where actors are only allowed to play what they are, e.g. a straight actor isn't allowed to play gay and vice versa, but the aim and hope is to have the disability equivalent of colourblind casting, which is now the norm in theatre. Until that's achieved though, I think giving one of the most famous disabled roles to a non-disabled actor would be controversial.
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Nov 16, 2019 11:42:57 GMT
Yeah, nothing there to appeal enough to make me fork out to travel to London for it. And I'm old now. I never need to see another Romeo and Juliet again, especially not another with all white & too old casting. As has been mentioned before, the NT under Norris is not programming for the likes of us:experienced "old school" theatregoers who want to see the canon of Shakespeare, Shaw, Ibsen, Chekhov, Moliere and the like, with good casts and creatives.
|
|
2,963 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 16, 2019 11:57:43 GMT
Shakespeare, Shaw, Ibsen, Chekhov, Moliere and the like But there's plenty of that elsewhere - Ibsen and Chekhov seem to be on constantly at the moment (I recently saw two at the RX Manchester the same day - a 'straight', touring Cherry Orchard in the main house and Rashdash's Three Sisters in the studio). I think it's good our National Theatre is supporting and bringing on living writers rather than just the illustrious dead.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Nov 16, 2019 12:25:19 GMT
Ok to sum up, people are complaining that Norris has programmed Romeo and Juliet, and people are also complaining that he’s not programming enough Shakespeare
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 16, 2019 12:48:50 GMT
the historical Richard was not massively affected by his scoliosis - being very able in battle - there is not much risk of a major casting backlash (and if there is, it will be from people who are intent on being outraged rather than understanding what is really important) The play's character isn't the historical version though, and I do think there is strong feeling now that 'cripping up' is becoming as unacceptable as 'blacking up', given that there are a lot of actors with disabilities who face discrimination in the industry (I know a writer who wasn't even able to see the play they'd written because the theatre wasn't physically accessible! Many theatres, esp. studio theatres and festivals, where young actors, writers, directors get started don't have access). The Donmar's Teenage Dick has cast actors with disabilities. Yes, I don't want a scenario where actors are only allowed to play what they are, e.g. a straight actor isn't allowed to play gay and vice versa, but the aim and hope is to have the disability equivalent of colourblind casting, which is now the norm in theatre. Until that's achieved though, I think giving one of the most famous disabled roles to a non-disabled actor would be controversial. The NT has a broad audience and I doubt more than a small minority of it would regard Richard III being played by a non-disabled actor as being in the slightest bit controversial, so there should be no barrier to them doing it. Those who do, when Kathryn Hunter played the role was it a problem for you she wasn’t disabled ? Or does one minority take precedence over another ? Also colourblind casting isn’t really the norm now - for example the current Death of a Salesman is the exact opposite of colourblind casting.
|
|
2,963 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 16, 2019 13:11:27 GMT
I doubt more than a small minority of it would regard Richard III being played by a non-disabled actor as being in the slightest bit controversial That's just the point. 30 years ago they wouldn't have been bothered about a 'blackface' Othello either. Also colourblind casting isn’t really the norm now It is at many theatres unless the play is very specifically about a certain racial/cultural experience (as with YV Salesman or The Ferryman), and increasingly in TV (the BBC Les Mis for example, and the new David Copperfield).
|
|
1,316 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Nov 16, 2019 13:41:23 GMT
I'm really looking forward to all the new stuff, particularly R&J with the the excellent Josh O' Connor. Also Godwin has done some of the best productions of recent years.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 16, 2019 13:51:34 GMT
the historical Richard was not massively affected by his scoliosis - being very able in battle - there is not much risk of a major casting backlash (and if there is, it will be from people who are intent on being outraged rather than understanding what is really important) The play's character isn't the historical version though, and I do think there is strong feeling now that 'cripping up' is becoming as unacceptable as 'blacking up', given that there are a lot of actors with disabilities who face discrimination in the industry (I know a writer who wasn't even able to see the play they'd written because the theatre wasn't physically accessible! Many theatres, esp. studio theatres and festivals, where young actors, writers, directors get started don't have access). The Donmar's Teenage Dick has cast actors with disabilities. Yes, I don't want a scenario where actors are only allowed to play what they are, e.g. a straight actor isn't allowed to play gay and vice versa, but the aim and hope is to have the disability equivalent of colourblind casting, which is now the norm in theatre. Until that's achieved though, I think giving one of the most famous disabled roles to a non-disabled actor would be controversial. You are assuming a very narrow presentation of the character. Other than a few lines, there is scarcely any reference to the nature of any physical disability with the Richard in the text (and those that are are very clearly Tudor propaganda) - yes, the opening speech mentions being deformed but not the nature of it. You can play the character without any visually obvious 'deformities' at all and the play still works. The real 'deformity' in the character is how his brain is programmed. It is wrong to assume that you have to adopt a massive hump and a prosthetic nose or scamper around on crutches to be Richard III. The role isn't a "disabled" role - it is a great character role with charm, wit, intelligence and a very warped world view. As long as the actor can convey all of that, it matters not whether they have a disability or not. And, of course, not all disabilities are visible.
|
|
854 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Nov 16, 2019 13:54:24 GMT
Yeah, nothing there to appeal enough to make me fork out to travel to London for it. And I'm old now. I never need to see another Romeo and Juliet again, especially not another with all white & too old casting. As has been mentioned before, the NT under Norris is not programming for the likes of us:experienced "old school" theatregoers who want to see the canon of Shakespeare, Shaw, Ibsen, Chekhov, Moliere and the like, with good casts and creatives. Really? Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra and Twelfth Night, Macbeth, Tartuffe, The Visit, Three Sisters, Hedda Gabler, Peter Gynt, Exit the King, Julie.
|
|
2,963 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 16, 2019 14:25:59 GMT
You are assuming a very narrow presentation of the character. Other than a few lines, there is scarcely any reference to the nature of any physical disability with the Richard in the text (and those that are are very clearly Tudor propaganda) - yes, the opening speech mentions being deformed but not the nature of it. You can play the character without any visually obvious 'deformities' at all and the play still works. The real 'deformity' in the character is how his brain is programmed. It is wrong to assume that you have to adopt a massive hump and a prosthetic nose or scamper around on crutches to be Richard III. The role isn't a "disabled" role - it is a great character role with charm, wit, intelligence and a very warped world view. As long as the actor can convey all of that, it matters not whether they have a disability or not. And, of course, not all disabilities are visible. His opening speech is very explicit about his visible disability, as are other characters throughout - elvish-mark'd abortive rooting hog etc.. Not all disabilities are visible - mine isn't - but his famously shows in his shadow and he is visibly different enough from others to make dogs bark etc... . In the 'prequel' Henry VI he's even more explicit, describing his arms, legs and back. We're talking about a play written in an era that still had Fisher King notions about the monarch's body, and in many cultures disability is still viewed with superstition (I remember a horrible experience with a visibly disabled friend and a London mini cab driver). He attributes his personality to the way society treats him and marginalises him.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Nov 16, 2019 15:15:32 GMT
Ok to sum up, people are complaining that Norris has programmed Romeo and Juliet, and people are also complaining that he’s not programming enough Shakespeare Completely agree. Design one season and a portion of the public will say you're being elitist and using public money for a niche artform; go in another direction and others will say you're rejecting traditional theatre-goers to appeal to the masses. Have too many established plays and some will say that public money should be bringing in new British authors; too many new shows and they'll say you're ignoring the classics. Play around with the casting and some will complain of 'diversity for its own sake'; be too straight and others will complain about a lack of diverse roles. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't state their gripes on social media like TheatreBoard, but I can imagine that running an organisation like the NT must at times be a rather demoralising & thankless task.
|
|
1,848 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Nov 16, 2019 16:33:51 GMT
By definition the National Theatre cannot please all of the people all of the time.
We are a complex nation of 66m individuals, as a Welshman I could complain about the lack of a Welsh writers etc.
The plays announced this week on initial impression do not excite me but this does not mean it hasn’t and will not excite me again in the future.
My play of the year was at the National, the multiculturalism of Nine Nights and Small Island, the privilege of Hansard, the poverty of Faith Hope and Charity and plenty more means that on the whole the National traverses our complex nation in a way that has to be applauded.
|
|
6,347 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 16, 2019 16:45:53 GMT
Completely agree. Design one season and a portion of the public will say you're being elitist and using public money for a niche artform; go in another direction and others will say you're rejecting traditional theatre-goers to appeal to the masses. Have too many established plays and some will say that public money should be bringing in new British authors; too many new shows and they'll say you're ignoring the classics. Play around with the casting and some will complain of 'diversity for its own sake'; be too straight and others will complain about a lack of diverse roles. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't state their gripes on social media like TheatreBoard, but I can imagine that running an organisation like the NT must at times be a rather demoralising & thankless task. The best approach IMO is one where you accept you can't please everyone and ignore the moaners.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Nov 16, 2019 17:45:15 GMT
the historical Richard was not massively affected by his scoliosis - being very able in battle - there is not much risk of a major casting backlash (and if there is, it will be from people who are intent on being outraged rather than understanding what is really important) The play's character isn't the historical version though, and I do think there is strong feeling now that 'cripping up' is becoming as unacceptable as 'blacking up', given that there are a lot of actors with disabilities who face discrimination in the industry (I know a writer who wasn't even able to see the play they'd written because the theatre wasn't physically accessible! Many theatres, esp. studio theatres and festivals, where young actors, writers, directors get started don't have access). The Donmar's Teenage Dick has cast actors with disabilities. Yes, I don't want a scenario where actors are only allowed to play what they are, e.g. a straight actor isn't allowed to play gay and vice versa, but the aim and hope is to have the disability equivalent of colourblind casting, which is now the norm in theatre. Until that's achieved though, I think giving one of the most famous disabled roles to a non-disabled actor would be controversial. I don’t disagree and feel often exasperated when seeing a play and an artist who is in a wheelchair, then at the end stand up to take a bow. But Richard III can be played by an able bodied actor. Ok to sum up, people are complaining that Norris has programmed Romeo and Juliet, and people are also complaining that he’s not programming enough Shakespeare This would be more, complained on the last artistic announcement that it was all new plays and no revivals including the Bard. However Romeo and Juliet is a blatant cash in as it is a popular piece, as it is on the GCSE curriculum and I am with Simon it is my least favourite of the tragedies. This is a plaque of both my houses, which I find Romo and Juliet to be too wet.
|
|