4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 1, 2016 16:32:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 19:23:37 GMT
you need to stop the nonsense re cost of rigs etc..thats not really anything to do with all this.much more about the future direction of the work and clearly the need to reemphasise Shakespeare and his contemporaries.Rigs etc can vary with deals,discounts etc etc......do see beyond the statement and to the heart of the issue. It's not nonsense. An employee posted elsewhere that the cost of this equipment meant the education budget had been cut, so it is relevant in so far as Rice was plainly making enemies on the inside of the organisation in several areas. Posters here, who it turned out had no clue what the costs involved were, then said the costs were negligible and the original poster was probably wrong anyway. A key point is Zoe Wannamaker obviously agrees with the rest of the board's decision as they could not survive if she spoke against it in any way. I knew the rough costs, you asked for a more specific cost, which I did. From that point on, to check the Globe's accounts is very easy to see how that cost could easily be subsumed. I could give you a rough hire quote if you really wanted me to waste another hour...... Anyone who has read up on this knows how the education department has quite a lot of capital investment recently apportioned to it, there's a bit of a turf war and I wouldn't take anything that someone within the organisation at face value. Maybe there are people who think that the theatre arm is in danger of losing out. Do you have any quote from Zoe Wanamaker which backs up your claim? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 20:25:50 GMT
A key point is Zoe Wannamaker obviously agrees with the rest of the board's decision as they could not survive if she spoke against it in any way. Or, Zoe Wanamaker obviously cannot spout her personal opinion publicly because she would then be required to resign from the Board. Who knows? I would guess that her priority would be remain on the Board so as to continue the family involvement with Shakespeare's Globe Trust, and so she has to publicly support the Board whether or not she personally agrees with it. |
|
134 posts
|
Post by Kenneth_C on Nov 2, 2016 20:05:57 GMT
A couple months ago, I received an email survey from the Globe. There were a number of questions, iirc, about traditional practices, lighting rigs, the Globe's reputation, amplified sound, etc.
It wasn't as blatant as I make it sound, but thinking back on it now, I suspect the survey results may have been the final nail in Emma's coffin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 3, 2016 15:06:31 GMT
A key point is Zoe Wannamaker obviously agrees with the rest of the board's decision as they could not survive if she spoke against it in any way. Or, Zoe Wanamaker obviously cannot spout her personal opinion publicly because she would then be required to resign from the Board. Who knows? I would guess that her priority would be remain on the Board so as to continue the family involvement with Shakespeare's Globe Trust, and so she has to publicly support the Board whether or not she personally agrees with it. Doubt it. If she disagreed with the board decision and said so it's the board members she disagreed with who'd have to go, not her. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 3, 2016 15:12:11 GMT
It's not nonsense. An employee posted elsewhere that the cost of this equipment meant the education budget had been cut, so it is relevant in so far as Rice was plainly making enemies on the inside of the organisation in several areas. Posters here, who it turned out had no clue what the costs involved were, then said the costs were negligible and the original poster was probably wrong anyway. A key point is Zoe Wannamaker obviously agrees with the rest of the board's decision as they could not survive if she spoke against it in any way. I knew the rough costs, you asked for a more specific cost, which I did. From that point on, to check the Globe's accounts is very easy to see how that cost could easily be subsumed. I could give you a rough hire quote if you really wanted me to waste another hour...... Anyone who has read up on this knows how the education department has quite a lot of capital investment recently apportioned to it, there's a bit of a turf war and I wouldn't take anything that someone within the organisation at face value. Maybe there are people who think that the theatre arm is in danger of losing out. Do you have any quote from Zoe Wanamaker which backs up your claim? Your argument that because the lighting costs are a small number compared with the overall budget which is a big number they could "easily" be subsumed is naive, if they had unplanned spending of £100000 on lights they have to cut that amount directly elsewhere, their organisation as a charity gives them little leeway. If you are able to provide a quote that shows this spend was actually planned for then fine, personally I am more inclined to believe an employee's post than speculation from an Emma Rice fan. I have no particular alliegance, if she had completed the job and put a roof on the place and seats in the pit I might have started going. |
|
219 posts
|
Post by PalelyLaura on Nov 3, 2016 16:19:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Nov 3, 2016 16:43:21 GMT
"Rylance’s take is that Rice wouldn’t allow any non-amplified productions at all (in part because it would be physically impossible to take the sound and lighting rigs down in time to allow ‘shared light’ production to run in rep) and no compromise was found."
This may be hopelessly naïve as I have little technical knowledge, but even if the rigs are there, can't you just leave them turned off?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2016 17:32:06 GMT
Very interesting read
I wonder if the lighting rig meant they couldn't use the floodlights needed for shared light evening performances
|
|
4,988 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Nov 3, 2016 17:35:04 GMT
Totally agree
Its still not making sense
Just keep the fancy lights from a lighting designed show and keep them switched on throughout
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2016 19:02:39 GMT
I knew the rough costs, you asked for a more specific cost....... personally I am more inclined to believe an employee's post than speculation from an Emma Rice fan. Reductive and beneath you. Praising the philosophy of one artist where it chimes with your own is way beyond the insularity and exclusivity of fandom. On the other hand most of us will know how the workplace breeds internal resentment (look at the FBI, for example, which is now having a barely hidden open turf war!), people tend to be too close to get a perspective when it's their own job that is being discussed. I would also be appalled if they somehow didn't realise such a sum was going to be spent but, knowing large organisations, at least that is plausible. On the shared lighting issue, the fixtures there could easily replicate the general cover that is used for evening shows. It can't have been an issue, unless they wanted the whole lot derigged, which would be crazy given the extra hours needed to rerig, focus etc. |
|
134 posts
|
Post by Kenneth_C on Nov 4, 2016 18:46:40 GMT
"Rylance’s take is that Rice wouldn’t allow any non-amplified productions at all (in part because it would be physically impossible to take the sound and lighting rigs down in time to allow ‘shared light’ production to run in rep) and no compromise was found." I don't read this as saying the issue was whether or not the rigs could be removed. (Personally, I think that's a smoke screen.) Instead, the issue was that Rice wouldn't allow ANY non-amplified productions AT ALL and that NO COMPROMISE was found. This comment from Rylance sounds more to the point than what is quoted above: "It’s not that the Globe has to be a place where you can only do things without amplification and lights, but it’s never been a place that’s closed down what directors want to do. But if one style of production prevents everybody else from doing any other kind – which was what happened this summer – it was impossible to do anything else in there, that was a difficult situation." [Emphasis added] |
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Nov 5, 2016 9:15:58 GMT
Even before all of this, I've been at the globe when shows have been delayed because the turnaround between two productions on one day has taken too long, and that's before thinking about de-rigging lights etc.
And if I was directing a trad production I don't think I'd be keen on all that technology all over the stage.
So I guess that's what it's one or the other, unless they completely change the structure of their seasons away from a repertory model to just playing one show at a time with a dark period between each one.
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Nov 5, 2016 10:09:04 GMT
Was Bailey's TITUS trad or site specific........did Dromgoole never experiment......How did Globe To Globe ever happen before the new incumbent.Its time to accept the Globe is unique and has a responsibility to us all.Some of the best work in last 10 years hasd been staged here and some stinkers.Repertoire is vital and the exploration of ideas across seasons in both houses.Maybe Emma Rice will be happier in another one-she has brought revisions indeed but please do not devalue the work previously and yet to come.Quite frankly its not a poison chalice but-maybe-best job in theatre for the right person.All to enjoy as debate moves forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2016 14:37:39 GMT
Something that occurred to me the other day - whatever happened to the Globe Young Players? www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22248199Launched with a bit of a fanfare and open auditions, a (slightly disappointing) production in the first Wanamaker season, another the following year using the same cast (so no auditions), then apparently quietly dropped. Seems to be right at the heart of the Globe's education / outreach / research into original practices remit. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 17, 2016 21:09:12 GMT
Has there been any mention of what the Globe are touring next summer? Want to make sure that I am not clashing...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 23:09:46 GMT
No announcement yet. Will probably be a Shakespeare play.
|
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Nov 19, 2016 13:29:46 GMT
I've heard there isn't a tour next year. Not sure why...
|
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Nov 19, 2016 13:30:15 GMT
Something that occurred to me the other day - whatever happened to the Globe Young Players? www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22248199Launched with a bit of a fanfare and open auditions, a (slightly disappointing) production in the first Wanamaker season, another the following year using the same cast (so no auditions), then apparently quietly dropped. Seems to be right at the heart of the Globe's education / outreach / research into original practices remit. Think this was a Dromgoole project so presumably didn't make the transition... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2016 16:17:15 GMT
Something that occurred to me the other day - whatever happened to the Globe Young Players? They either grew up or emigrated to Neverland. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 8:51:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 8:55:11 GMT
I really applaud her approach to it, she could have slunk away quietly and written the whole thing off, or she could take the opportunity to take one last stab at what she set out to do. I didn't see anything last season so can't comment on the actual content myself, but she was treated appallingly and I'm glad she's standing by principles. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 8:55:40 GMT
Wait, Edward Hogg and Kirsty Bushell as Romeo and Juliet? Well that's hugely unexpected, enormously age-inappropriate, and tremendously exciting all at once!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 9:18:10 GMT
What a class act. Good for you Emma.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 2, 2017 12:01:22 GMT
We get our 2nd Female Malvolio of the year with Katy Owen
|
|
