Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 26, 2017 19:47:25 GMT
She will be able to if she has time -
"An appointment package appropriate to the level of this position, with flexibility to accommodate some work away from the Globe, will be negotiated with the successful candidate in due course."
plus
"Depending on the skills of the successful applicant, the Artistic Director will undertake the roles of actor and/or director for productions from time to time"
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 26, 2017 20:38:55 GMT
Eh? I was an early supporter of The Globe even before it was built. I am quite happy with its development particularly the way it draws younger theatre goers and tourists. On the whole I have enjoyed the shows I've seen there. I'm on the keep the techie stuff to the minimum side but I didn't see any of the Rice regime shows. I will be seeing Much Ado soon. No reason why Ms Terry shouldn't do a decent job. AND I'm a supporter of the RSC...who knew? I see no problem pinning my lovely colours to both. The RSC has had its duds...Tamar's Revenge, anyone? But I'm a long term gal, a keeper. Oh I read that and thought it meant sort of artistically professionally rather than as an audience member, I've done both and seen great and not so great at both, it's just the Globe is much more accessible for me and has cheaper options. Will look forward to your views regarding Much Ado lynette So,did it mean actors and directors have to choose? Sorry if i misinterpreted the comment. Still daft. 😂
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 26, 2017 20:49:22 GMT
Not a rule, but there was some sniffiness / suspicion - eg this from Roger Allam:
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 7:13:16 GMT
I don't think you have to be an RSC stalwart to view the Globe as a tourist trap, that's pretty much my view as well!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 8:29:43 GMT
It is a legitimate theatre though, it's not like the half-assed shows you see in actual theme parks or the people performing scenes on demand in the gardens of Shakespeare's Birthplace. It's not that much more of a tourist trap than the RSC if we're being completely honest, in terms of people being as likely to visit it out of interest in Shakespearean history as to just see a play, and being able to take in a tour of the theatre and look at the exhibitions there and stop off at the gift shop on the way. The RSC's almost worse for it in some ways, after all there's not a *lot* to do in Stratford that's not Shakespeare-related...
(As an audience member I visit both, but the Globe being cheaper and more convenient means I'm much more likely to see everything they produce in a season than the RSC.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 8:36:21 GMT
I think they do some fabulous productions - I just hate the experience of going there. Every single time I've been there's been a baby crying and a fight amongst the groundlings... It's not so much the theatre as the audience it attracts, which in my experience seems to tend strongly towards people treating it as a tourist attraction and not a legitimate theatre, unfortunately.
Maybe I need to give it a second chance...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 8:43:46 GMT
Ah, that's a fair point. I guess it's all in the performance you end up at. Personally I try to avoid openings and closings because so many of the self-proclaimed regulars have behaved obnoxiously towards me in the past, but if you want to guarantee being surrounded by regulars rather than tourists, then you could use that to your advantage. Also I don't know how practical a suggestion it could be for you, but a midnight matinee is extremely unlikely to have babies or school parties in the audience...
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 27, 2017 10:29:57 GMT
Roger Allam one of the few actors who got the hang of the place. Brilliant Falstaff.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 10:35:49 GMT
Ah, that's a fair point. I guess it's all in the performance you end up at. Personally I try to avoid openings and closings because so many of the self-proclaimed regulars have behaved obnoxiously towards me in the past, but if you want to guarantee being surrounded by regulars rather than tourists, then you could use that to your advantage. Also I don't know how practical a suggestion it could be for you, but a midnight matinee is extremely unlikely to have babies or school parties in the audience... Personally I'm well aware that this is my problem with the Globe- the hardcore 'fans' being a bunch of cockwombles REALLY put me off a couple of years ago and I haven't been back. I know in my head if I go on a non opening/closing night and/or don't groundling then it'll be fine, they just left me with a bad taste.
So I resolve to make the effort and defy the cockwombles next season.
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 27, 2017 10:37:45 GMT
Never seen a fight in the groundlings. That would be fun...er, I mean...terrible.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 10:41:19 GMT
Never seen a fight in the groundlings. That would be fun...er, I mean...terrible. I once saw a woman open a thermos and take out some hotdogs #notaeuphamism
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jul 27, 2017 10:52:01 GMT
Oh I read that and thought it meant sort of artistically professionally rather than as an audience member, I've done both and seen great and not so great at both, it's just the Globe is much more accessible for me and has cheaper options. Will look forward to your views regarding Much Ado lynette So,did it mean actors and directors have to choose? Sorry if i misinterpreted the comment. Still daft. 😂 Sorry, my fault for not being clear. She was talking about directors and theatre-makers, not audience (and I think not so much actors).
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 27, 2017 12:44:45 GMT
I think they do some fabulous productions - I just hate the experience of going there. Every single time I've been there's been a baby crying and a fight amongst the groundlings... It's not so much the theatre as the audience it attracts, which in my experience seems to tend strongly towards people treating it as a tourist attraction and not a legitimate theatre, unfortunately. Maybe I need to give it a second chance... Yours is not the only experience I have heard of like that, does seem to be pot luck as to what audience you get, I've obviously been lucky, there's normally someone I want to cheerful wallop (being outside doesn't mean you can just chat through it!) but individuals rather than a collective and I've often met some lovely people who are there like me to see good theatre and not anything else but can imagine how that could easily ruin something and put you off.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jul 27, 2017 16:05:41 GMT
As I waited in my preferred Yard position for A Midsummer Night's Dream, an attractive young couple who were very into each other arrived just by, and I gradually edged a little away. We didn't speak, except that the woman said to me: "Oh, you have to stand bang in the centre, do you?" Half an hour into the play, the woman disentangled herself from the man and pushed through the crowd to the front of the stage. It was only then I realised she was Hermia (Anjana Vasan).
|
|
351 posts
|
Post by cirque on Jul 28, 2017 9:32:24 GMT
To get back on topic the appointment of Michelle Terry may herald a new sort of leadership that becomes more widespread and thus reduces the overall agendas of directors.The voice of the actor and the play may become,once more,paramount.
Michelle Terry is in a fascinating position having worked with a range of directors across the spectrum that should ensure a broad church at Globe.
I doubted whether the new AD would have time to plan a full 2018 season given that we are nearing the close of the current one.However the implication does indeed suggest that she will be able to do this....one wonders how long she has been aware of the appointment.If so-this is good,no transfer programme but straight into a new plan.
Personally,Cant Wait.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 28, 2017 10:13:13 GMT
Director-run companies are a relatively modern innovation in theatrical history, actors-run companies used to be the norm from the days of the great actor managers back through the centuries. You could say Olivier's NT was one, and McKellen & Petherbridge ran companies, and very recently Sheffield theatres has gone with actors, and the Globe itself had Rylance. It is no big deal, the question is how good a producer the AD is, whether they can recruit good directors, actors and writers. There is no real reason a director should be better than an actor at doing that.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 28, 2017 10:14:14 GMT
To get back on topic the appointment of Michelle Terry may herald a new sort of leadership that becomes more widespread and thus reduces the overall agendas of directors.The voice of the actor and the play may become,once more,paramount. snip Personally,Cant Wait. Good luck on finding a time machine to take you back to the nineteenth century! The lack of understanding of the role of a director from some quarters is quite astonishing.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 28, 2017 10:20:11 GMT
Director-run companies are a relatively modern innovation in theatrical history, actors-run companies used to be the norm from the days of the great actor managers back through the centuries. You could say Olivier's NT was one, and McKellen & Petherbridge ran companies, and very recently Sheffield theatres has gone with actors, and the Globe itself had Rylance. It is no big deal, the question is how good a producer the AD is, whether they can recruit good directors, actors and writers. There is no real reason a director should be better than an actor at doing that. These were actors who became directors, or employed others to direct. Terry may well be a producing AD, a la David Lan, which would be a decent practical solution. On the other hand she may start to direct, although that's a massive risk that the Globe have taken, which would be rather unexpected, given the circumstances. We do have a number of companies that have performers doubling as directors but they tend to be the more cutting edge fringe companies.
|
|
3,938 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jul 28, 2017 15:01:14 GMT
As I waited in my preferred Yard position for A Midsummer Night's Dream, an attractive young couple who were very into each other arrived just by, and I gradually edged a little away. We didn't speak, except that the woman said to me: "Oh, you have to stand bang in the centre, do you?" Half an hour into the play, the woman disentangled herself from the man and pushed through the crowd to the front of the stage. It was only then I realised she was Hermia (Anjana Vasan). Was the man she was with also one of the cast or did she seduce a different groundling at each performance?
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Aug 18, 2017 11:53:07 GMT
|
|
2,358 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 18, 2017 12:09:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2017 12:13:44 GMT
Oh good, back to straining to hear the poetry over the sound of nearby helicopters, I can hardly contain my joy.
|
|
160 posts
|
Post by bee on Aug 18, 2017 12:58:40 GMT
Not a whole lot of detail in those interviews but I think she's probably off to a better start than Emma Rice managed with her "I'd rather listen to The Archers" from her first interview in the job.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Aug 20, 2017 6:14:58 GMT
|
|
5,441 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 21, 2017 8:45:36 GMT
I am not sure I agree with Terry's policy of parity of casting between make and female actors.
I am absolutely all for increasing opportunities for female actors in Jacobethan plays and have always worked to achieve a more balanced representation.
However working to an arbitrary 50-50 split seems unnecessary. Certainly on a play by play basis. It might be possible across a whole season with the new writing pieces are commissioned to be 70-80% female characters thus allowing more flexibility with the existing plays.
A rule for absolute parity risks requiring a lot of reconfiguring of texts to accommodate an arbitrary rule. Any changes to a Shakespeare or Jonson or similar play have to work with the relationships and structures of the piece.
For instance the Watermill production of Twelfth Night that is touring at present has a female Sir Toby and a female Antonio. Both of these casting choices seem to run against everything I know about the piece and disturb to complex web of relationships that are at the heart of this great play. Making such a radical shift in casting takes it away from being what Shakespeare could ever have envisaged.
On the other hand the RSC King John much loved and hated by members of this forum took two characters and created the Pippa Nixon Bastard which worked well within the play and the production.
Just because Shakespeare and his contemporaries are out of copyright and thus can be altered without needing to seek permission doesn't mean that it is always right to do so.
I absolutely want to see more women on the stage at the Globe but this should not be achieved by arbitrary rules but rather by adopting a more thoughtful and holistic approach. Bring back the all female ensemble from time to time. Commission all female new writing. Just don't rewrite plays to fit a rule that looks good in a headline but doesn't serve the texts or the audiences.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Aug 21, 2017 8:55:39 GMT
oxfordsimon , good point, totally agree! But judging by the article it seems like Terry's talking not only about switching the gender of the charaters but also casting women in male roles which would keep the original gender of the charater ("Shakespeare didn't worry about gender - he had men playing women - so I don't know why we have to worry about it.") I believe Terry is too smart to overlook it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 9:13:38 GMT
I think Shakespeare should be played with, not because he's out of copyright and therefore there are no legal implications to doing so (though that does help), but because there's just so bloody much of it. I've said it before and I'll say it again - you don't like what one director has done with their production of, say, Twelfth Night? Hang in there, it'll be about three months before a different production comes along. Even Maria Aberg's divisive King John at the RSC took place mere months after the Union Theatre's production. If we don't play with our ideas and instead just keep things how they've been done before, things have the potential to get really boring and super repetitive really quickly.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 21, 2017 10:38:24 GMT
The most recent season was 47% female, so this is just a continuation of current practice.
|
|
5,441 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 21, 2017 11:03:13 GMT
oxfordsimon , good point, totally agree! But judging by the article it seems like Terry's talking not only about switching the gender of the charaters but also casting women in male roles which would keep the original gender of the charater ("Shakespeare didn't worry about gender - he had men playing women - so I don't know why we have to worry about it.") I believe Terry is too smart to overlook it. The line about Shakespeare having men playing women really has nothing to do with it. It was a legal restriction rather than an artistic choice on the part of the players. Shakespeare also had zero idea about the artificial concept of gender. This is absolutely a modern construct designed to force people into categories so that they can be labelled. Shakespeare can stand plenty of reimagining and 'messing' with. But to do so to meet arbitrary limits seems unnecessary and not geared towards producing the best possible shows.
|
|
4,047 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 21, 2017 11:22:29 GMT
Shakespeare also had zero idea about the artificial concept of gender. This is absolutely a modern construct designed to force people into categories so that they can be labelled.] No, 'gender' was invented precisely to widen the categories, to distinguish between biological sex and socially-constructed behaviours so that the restriction of the latter to one sex or another can be questioned. It was a move away from biological determinism that we have all benefitted from hugely. It was never about labelling people, it was about labelling behaviour as socially constructed so that it could cross the borders of the existing biological categories.
|
|