|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 14:54:34 GMT
I have no horse in this race in terms of desperation to see it (I will live without) what my particular nerd brain gets annoyed about is the use of spaces at the NT in the 'wrong' way. The Dorf/Shed/Cottesloe has always been the 'experimental' space supported (financially and artistically) by the other two. With the other two also being where you make your money (so whacking out a bog standard Shakespeare, or putting a star on stage). Anyway it's a minor nerd point but it irks me. I personally don’t think this is a minor nerd point at all. Blanchett’s salary alone must have eaten up a sizeable chunk of the budget - unless she’s on fee waiver.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 14:57:48 GMT
This production just gets worse and worse and worse, my excitement levels are THROUGH THE ROOF. If one of you lot wins the ballot, please let it go on record that I would KILL to be your +1, I am not too proud to beg and will sit anywhere.
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Oct 3, 2018 15:06:20 GMT
I have no horse in this race in terms of desperation to see it (I will live without) what my particular nerd brain gets annoyed about is the use of spaces at the NT in the 'wrong' way. The Dorf/Shed/Cottesloe has always been the 'experimental' space supported (financially and artistically) by the other two. With the other two also being where you make your money (so whacking out a bog standard Shakespeare, or putting a star on stage). Anyway it's a minor nerd point but it irks me. I personally don’t think this is a minor nerd point at all. Blanchett’s salary alone must have eaten up a sizeable chunk of the budget - unless she’s on fee waiver. Emily makes a very sensible point - this production would have made the NT a significant amount of money, had they put it in the Lyttleton, whereas in the Dorfman and with this ballot arrangement it will certainly make people talk about it and give free publicity to the NT, but do rather little for its pockets. As far as Blanchett's salary is concerned, of course there may be exceptions and the actual numbers may fall within a relatively large range, but I seem to remember from the 'Angels' days that even an A-list actor like Andrew Garfield was paid a lot less than people could have imagined, since they have some kind of cap anyway. Emily may know/remember more than I do and I'm sure she will share her knowledge
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Oct 3, 2018 15:18:21 GMT
I think you can either do something in a small theatre for "artistic integrity", or cast a star name, but not both.
|
|
486 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Oct 3, 2018 15:33:56 GMT
Details on day seats at and Cate in discussion
|
|
4,047 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 3, 2018 15:43:38 GMT
I am much less bothered by ballots when there is a day ticket/returns-resale arrangement in place, so the really dedicated fans *can* get their fix. Because we all know that if you really want to see something you'll put the effort in to find a way if it exists - queuing for Donmar Othello day seats is what ultimately got me addicted to this hobby, precisely because putting in the effort got me into a 'hot ticket' show.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 15:52:56 GMT
OohI love it when I'm right!
I can't answer for current rules, but certainly the NT used to operate a 'pay scale' for everyone, so yes 'top billing' in a play got you more than 'second spear carrier' but it didn't matter WHO you were that top rate was the same (or at least within a pay bracket of the same, because it obviously also depends on how many performances etc etc). And that such monies were while nothing to be sniffed at for a jobbing actor, certainly not what Hollywood stars get in commercial West End, and way below what Broadway pays.
On which note, obviously for some 'stars' if they're brought in on a promise of West End or Broadway transfer, then it's a good deal- kudos of the NT and the decent pay packet associated with a commercial run (all well under what the likes of Cate makes in movies obviously).
I don't know how much any of this has changed, whether there are deals to be struck for an exception under their various funding agreements (for example if you can prove to the Arts Council an expense such as a salary will bring more revenue sometimes they'll fund it above and beyond the usual etc).
BUT I very much agree that this as an economic and artistic exercise doesn't sit well. Even if the production is super experimental, whacking a star in it and making it super exclusive doesn't sit right. Maybe there's a bigger plan, maybe not though.
|
|
2,576 posts
|
Post by viserys on Oct 3, 2018 16:04:33 GMT
Didn't I read somewhere that this play had been scheduled for the Dorfman *before* Blanchett's name (and thus massive star appeal) was attached to it?
I would agree that it had made more sense to put it in a bigger theatre, but since I don't really have a horse in this race, I can't get too excited. I might enter the ballot just for the heck of it.
|
|
2,966 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 3, 2018 16:23:00 GMT
I would agree that it had made more sense to put it in a bigger theatre I don't know what Cate Blanchett is like on stage, but her screen style is subtle and I'm not sure that would translate to the back seats of a big theatre space. With Mosquitoes, Olivia Colman spoke about her stage fright so that may have been a factor with the decision there, too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 16:25:28 GMT
I would imagine that La Blanchett is doing it just for the love of the art dahling. Everything about this play would appear to push all of her buttons to me. She doesn't necessarily need to do it for the money nor for it to be on the biggest stage in London's glitzy West End either. I can just imagine that the combination of Martin Crimp + The Nash + Stephen Dillane + Katie Mitchell made her all excited and when they suggested that on top of all of that, it would be in a small intimate theatre and not the big old Olivier, she was like the cat that had the cream. I'm willing to bet the money was probably one of the last things she discussed. She's got a history of doing the big budget money spinning movie stuff so that she can do the smaller, interesting pieces of work so I don't see why this would be any different.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 16:29:03 GMT
I would agree that it had made more sense to put it in a bigger theatre I don't know what Cate Blanchett is like on stage, but her screen style is subtle and I'm not sure that would translate to the back seats of a big theatre space. With Mosquitoes, Olivia Colman spoke about her stage fright so that may have been a factor with the decision there, too. She's not too shabby in the old stage work. I don't think she's afraid of bigger spaces.
|
|
3,100 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Oct 3, 2018 16:32:09 GMT
She was last at the Barbican?
|
|
|
Post by floorshow on Oct 3, 2018 16:45:30 GMT
She was last at the Barbican? Gross Und Klein was by no means a classic (more of a car crash, from memory) but she was hypnotic for the duration - good old fashioned class.
|
|
2,966 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 3, 2018 16:51:06 GMT
I don't think she's afraid of bigger spaces. No, that was Colman, but my thought when I first heard about this casting was 'better get up close' because Cate Blanchett doesn't have one of those faces that you could read from the back seats, if you see what I mean. I'm glad it's in the Dorfman, if I can get a ticket.
|
|
4,047 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 3, 2018 16:53:35 GMT
I saw Gross und Klein from the Barbican balcony and didn’t have a problem reading her performance (though the overall piece left me cold).
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 3, 2018 16:57:14 GMT
I have no horse in this race in terms of desperation to see it (I will live without) what my particular nerd brain gets annoyed about is the use of spaces at the NT in the 'wrong' way. The Dorf/Shed/Cottesloe has always been the 'experimental' space supported (financially and artistically) by the other two. With the other two also being where you make your money (so whacking out a bog standard Shakespeare, or putting a star on stage). Anyway it's a minor nerd point but it irks me. That’s not 100% true. The Cottesloe hasn’t always been an experimental space. It’s been a space in which they put things they thought would be less commercial but that’s not the same thing - for example the last production of Rutherford and Son was in there and it wasn’t experimental (despite Katie Mitchell) Also they put productions in there for artistic reasons - they often used to programme Shakespeare in there, more than in the bigger spaces really. The big difference in the use of the space came with Norris turning it into a new play monoculture which has had several negative effects, not least requiring minority interest revivals (which they should be doing) like Exit the King going into the large theatres with not enough audience to support them.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 3, 2018 16:59:55 GMT
The idea of a ballot is the fairest way, of course, and I can’t see how anyone need compain about that.
However.
This is a Katie Mitchell production of a Martin Crimp play. why on earth are people suddenly falling over themselves to see it? Because they want to see a particular actor? That’s crazy. If you wouldn’t get anything out such a production (and I fall into the camp of being keen to see it if it was going to be acted by a bunch of nobodies) then why think that one actor will make you like it better?
What will irk is anyone who gets tickets and then goes on about how difficult and pointless it all was and how they don’t see why it was such a big deal anyway. It’s Katie Mitchell and Martin Crimp, do your homework people!
|
|
994 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 3, 2018 17:06:05 GMT
Out of interest, why do you say this? I feel like, in instances where demand so massively outstrips supply like this or the recent Punchdrunk thing or the RADA Hiddlestone thing, having a ballot is the easiest way to give everyone a fair chance.
Don't get me wrong, it'll be frustrating to miss out, but it seems fair and at least I won't be sat for hours jumping between computers hitting refresh.
Because it puts up a wall. Because it excludes. Because it goes against how accessible I feel our National Theatre should be.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 17:11:09 GMT
This is a Katie Mitchell production of a Martin Crimp play. why on earth are people suddenly falling over themselves to see it? Because they want to see a particular actor? That’s crazy. If you wouldn’t get anything out such a production (and I fall into the camp of being keen to see it if it was going to be acted by a bunch of nobodies) then why think that one actor will make you like it better? What will irk is anyone who gets tickets and then goes on about how difficult and pointless it all was and how they don’t see why it was such a big deal anyway. It’s Katie Mitchell and Martin Crmp, do your homework people! BEEP BEEP! Irk Alert! Oh that's definitely me. I just want to see Cate Blanchett. I don't mind admitting it.
|
|
1,227 posts
|
Post by Steve on Oct 3, 2018 17:13:15 GMT
I saw Gross und Klein from the Barbican balcony and didn’t have a problem reading her performance (though the overall piece left me cold). I loved Gross und Klein, but there was a LOT of walkouts at the interval of the performance I attended. And this was even after the Barbican pulled the elitist trick of pretending the show was in German with English surtitles, right up until the very last minute. Still, folks booked it just to storm out at the interval lol. I put this down to folks who booked to see a sequel to Elizabeth I, and instead got "Emo - The Road Movie," aka "Nobody Likes You, Is life even worth living?" At least this show is honestly titled, given Crimp's penchant for alienation, so nobody can claim that they were expecting a "Lord of the Rings/Game of Thrones" mash up. Except the ballot has now got the papers touting "must have" tickets, so predictably people will book it for the heck of it, and walk out at the interval complaining how "boring" it is. At least there will be plenty of returns once the reviews come in. I really really want to see this, if only to count the number of people who walk out at the interval. And you know when the walkouts start, a "confrontational" Crimp will express his delight at forcing "the bourgeoisie" to "look at themselves in the mirror." I am so joining the returns queue.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 3, 2018 17:15:12 GMT
The way to do it badly is what the Royal Court did with The River, meaning that proximity to Sloane Square and a life of leisure was the way to get a ticket, cutting out pretty much anyone who has to sort accommodation and transport in advance and prioritising those not working who could get to the box office for that allocation.
|
|
373 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Oct 3, 2018 17:18:51 GMT
The way to do it badly is what the Royal Court did with The River, meaning that proximity to Sloane Square and a life of leisure was the way to get a ticket, cutting out pretty much anyone who has to sort accommodation and transport in advance and prioritising those not working who could get to the box office for that allocation. The tickets for "The river" were available online. I got one without being in London at the time.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 3, 2018 17:19:29 GMT
This is a Katie Mitchell production of a Martin Crimp play. why on earth are people suddenly falling over themselves to see it? Because they want to see a particular actor? That’s crazy. If you wouldn’t get anything out such a production (and I fall into the camp of being keen to see it if it was going to be acted by a bunch of nobodies) then why think that one actor will make you like it better? What will irk is anyone who gets tickets and then goes on about how difficult and pointless it all was and how they don’t see why it was such a big deal anyway. It’s Katie Mitchell and Martin Crmp, do your homework people! BEEP BEEP! Irk Alert! Oh that's definitely me. I just want to see Cate Blanchett. I don't mind admitting it. Ah, Ryan, you don't count as you see a lot of more experimental stuff anyway (especially with particular actors experimentally getting their kit off)!
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 3, 2018 17:22:05 GMT
The way to do it badly is what the Royal Court did with The River, meaning that proximity to Sloane Square and a life of leisure was the way to get a ticket, cutting out pretty much anyone who has to sort accommodation and transport in advance and prioritising those not working who could get to the box office for that allocation. The tickets for "The river" were available online. I got one without being in London at the time. Tickets only went on sale on the day, so you had to live at least pretty close to London or not be working, so being able to travel at the drop of a hat.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 17:25:27 GMT
Ah, Ryan, you don't count as you see a lot of more experimental stuff anyway ( especially with particular actors experimentally getting their kit off) Ah, my favourite kinds of productions . . .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 17:29:14 GMT
The idea of a ballot is the fairest way, of course, and I can’t see how anyone need compain about that. However. This is a Katie Mitchell production of a Martin Crimp play. why on earth are people suddenly falling over themselves to see it? Because they want to see a particular actor? That’s crazy. If you wouldn’t get anything out such a production (and I fall into the camp of being keen to see it if it was going to be acted by a bunch of nobodies) then why think that one actor will make you like it better? What will irk is anyone who gets tickets and then goes on about how difficult and pointless it all was and how they don’t see why it was such a big deal anyway. It’s Katie Mitchell and Martin Crimp, do your homework people! Honestly, those reactions are why I'm so excited. I just want to hear them first-hand in the theatre rather than on the internet afterwards.
|
|
2,966 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 3, 2018 18:14:35 GMT
Gross und Klein from the Barbican balcony Ah. I really hate big spaces, though, when you are sitting far back - I even found SRB 'distant' at the Barbican. I saw Girl From the North Country from the OV circle and kicked myself that I couldn't shell out for closer seats (and that ushers wouldn't let me sit in the unoccupied stalls) because I could hardly make out Shirley Henderson's face and she's one of my favourite actresses.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 18:16:54 GMT
I have no horse in this race in terms of desperation to see it (I will live without) what my particular nerd brain gets annoyed about is the use of spaces at the NT in the 'wrong' way. The Dorf/Shed/Cottesloe has always been the 'experimental' space supported (financially and artistically) by the other two. With the other two also being where you make your money (so whacking out a bog standard Shakespeare, or putting a star on stage). Anyway it's a minor nerd point but it irks me. That’s not 100% true. The Cottesloe hasn’t always been an experimental space. It’s been a space in which they put things they thought would be less commercial but that’s not the same thing - for example the last production of Rutherford and Son was in there and it wasn’t experimental (despite Katie Mitchell) Also they put productions in there for artistic reasons - they often used to programme Shakespeare in there, more than in the bigger spaces really. The big difference in the use of the space came with Norris turning it into a new play monoculture which has had several negative effects, not least requiring minority interest revivals (which they should be doing) like Exit the King going into the large theatres with not enough audience to support them. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I didn't read Emi's 'experimental' (the clue is is in the quotes) as referring to dramaturgy but to newer work, perhaps work that is more risky in terms of commercialism. Didn't there used to be (perhaps still is) a direct relationship between the then Cottesloe and the Studio?
|
|
4,047 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 3, 2018 18:22:39 GMT
The idea of a ballot is the fairest way, of course, and I can’t see how anyone need compain about that. However. This is a Katie Mitchell production of a Martin Crimp play. why on earth are people suddenly falling over themselves to see it? Because they want to see a particular actor? That’s crazy. If you wouldn’t get anything out such a production (and I fall into the camp of being keen to see it if it was going to be acted by a bunch of nobodies) then why think that one actor will make you like it better? What will irk is anyone who gets tickets and then goes on about how difficult and pointless it all was and how they don’t see why it was such a big deal anyway. It’s Katie Mitchell and Martin Crimp, do your homework people! Of course there’s an element of bucket-list ticking for some people (I’ve joked about ‘collecting’ stage appearances of Lord of the Rings and Doctor Who actors before now), but it’s also that big name actors are seen as a stamp of quality. After all, Cate Blanchett is not short of work. She can pick and choose what she does. So if she is choosing to do this - instead of a different play, or a big Hollywood film, or some prestige TV, or something on Broadway - then, the theory goes, it will probably be good, or at the very least, interesting. Now, La Blanchett’s view of what is ‘good’ and ‘interesting’ theatre probably differs from the general public’s - but if you just know her mainstream film work chances are you don’t know that!
|
|
994 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 3, 2018 20:52:20 GMT
^But you could use that argument about major football at Wembley for example, or particular exhibitions at subsidised art galleries and museums. There is a finite supply, and figuring out a fair way to distribute it is the only way. Aha, but I'm not using that argument about football lol. (Where did that comparison come from?) I'm using it about our (admittedly poorly) state funded theatre.
|
|