|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 11:06:05 GMT
Not got time to write it so could you all imagine this is an insightful post comparing the current situations of the Globe and UKIP
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 11:17:18 GMT
Not got time to write it so could you all imagine this is an insightful post comparing the current situations of the Globe and UKIP Maybe like Brexit, in which case do we now get hard Globe or soft Globe? A few lights and the odd microphone and speaker or, Amish-like, nothing electrical?* * Even the Amish allow some electricity in fact. ADDED: Twitter reaction is very positive for Rice, awful for the Globe. Maybe enough industry disgust to launch a counter coup? twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=news&q=emmarice&src=typd |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 11:31:02 GMT
I'm shocked and saddened.
I saw just the first half of one single Shakespeare at the Globe Theatre in the Rylance years and then two new plays and one Shakespeare in the Dromgoole period. But I've already been to Shakespeare's Globe three times in Emma Rice's Summer of Wonder (as well as seeing The Flying Lovers of Vitebsk at Bristol Old Vic, before it transferred to the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse). And I've booked to see the first two Winter Noir shows in the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse where I've never been before.
So, shall really look forward to the rest of Emma's reign at the Globe, and then probably hardly ever, or never, go there again.
Emma, we love you! And eagerly look forward to whatever you do next and wherever you do it.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Oct 25, 2016 11:33:55 GMT
There is a particularly reactionary element within the Globe hierarchy, unable to see far past the original performance practice idea, it appears as though their small but loud grouping has won and Rice just doesn't need the Globe if it's going to be a continuous battle with them. Now, in one fell swoop they've made the job into a poisoned chalice (appropriately Shakespearean), a new person will have to satisfy the conservatives who think they've got their theatre back, the new audience who don't realise they've lost theirs and a press who, having been broadly supportive of Rice, will now expect much greater things from a successor as justification for the change. The press have been broadly UNsupportive. I admit to a bit of sympathy for ER but you really cant go on record shortly after being appointed and admit you dont really kbow the canon!! Am afraid she had to go. Imagine they will go for safe pair of hands now. |
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Oct 25, 2016 11:34:55 GMT
I'm shocked and saddened. I saw just the first half of one single Shakespeare at the Globe Theatre in the Rylance years and then two new plays and one Shakespeare in the Dromgoole period. But I've already been to Shakespeare's Globe three times in Emma Rice's Summer of Wonder (as well as seeing The Flying Lovers of Vitebsk at Bristol Old Vic, before it transferred to the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse). And I've booked to see the first two Winter Noir shows in the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse where I've never been before. So, shall really look forward to the rest of Emma's reign at the Globe, and then probably hardly ever, or never, go there again. Emma, we love you! And eagerly look forward to whatever you do next and wherever you do it. Oh well, each to their own |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 11:39:02 GMT
There is a particularly reactionary element within the Globe hierarchy, unable to see far past the original performance practice idea, it appears as though their small but loud grouping has won and Rice just doesn't need the Globe if it's going to be a continuous battle with them. Now, in one fell swoop they've made the job into a poisoned chalice (appropriately Shakespearean), a new person will have to satisfy the conservatives who think they've got their theatre back, the new audience who don't realise they've lost theirs and a press who, having been broadly supportive of Rice, will now expect much greater things from a successor as justification for the change. The press have been broadly UNsupportive. I admit to a bit of sympathy for ER but you really cant go on record shortly after being appointed and admit you dont really kbow the canon!! Am afraid she had to go. Imagine they will go for safe pair of hands now. Supportive of the work, for her personally there have been a bunch of old men (and you really can't avoid that fact) being very unsupportive. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 25, 2016 11:39:51 GMT
All seems an odd way of managing it. As noted above Emma Rice was not an unknown quantity and I can't imagine kept quiet about her ideas and plans. Disappointing, I loved the Globe of old but having been there this summer think there was room for some happy medium between traditional and less so and this seems very poorly handled.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 11:39:55 GMT
Perhaps Greg Doran and Antony Sher could make a joint application to the Artistic Directordhip of Shakespeare's Globe. They're boring us to death with every single Shakespeare play in Stratford-upon-Avon, so they'd be ideally qualified to bore everyone to death at Shakespeare's Globe in "shared lighting" with one dull production after another after another ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 11:41:43 GMT
I can just imagine the interview process for the job:
Candidate 1: I loved Emma Rice and I'd like to continue her interesting ideas by making the canon more innovative.
Board: NEXT!
Candidate 2: I'd like to bring a new audience to the Globe with some exciting new productions. After all, the current lot are going to die fairly soon.
Board: NEXT!
Candidate 3: I plan to return the Globe to it's status as tourist fodder and making it the 'Last Of The Summer Wine' of London's theatres. Safe, conservative, dull, only suitable for those who found 'The Two Ronnies' to be a little too cutting edge etc.
Board: When can you start?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 11:43:52 GMT
April 23 2018 - Time for Shakespeare's Globe to be truly historically authentic and be burnt to the f***ing ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 11:46:10 GMT
Twitter - The Stage
Can't get on The Stage website, apparently they are having trouble with high volumes of visitors.
|
|
143 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Oct 25, 2016 11:46:10 GMT
I would be really sorry if Emma was not professionally treated by the board - I don't know all the facts to be able to say anything about that. And what I write below must be taken with a pinch of salt, as my comments are made from the precarious position of someone who never saw any of Emma's work in the Globe. Having said that, it seems to me that we must focus on the Globe's raison d'être, goals and rules.
What was the Globe originally designed for? As space for theatre in general, ANY theatre, any experimental theatrical art form? Or was it designed as stated above for a specific type of "radical experiment to explore the conditions within which Shakespeare and his contemporaries worked."
If the latter was the case, the whole point is to be creative without modern devices and technology, such as designed sound and lighting. This is a challenge in itself, considering how modern audiences are used to controlled theatrical spaces, geared with modern equipment designed to create specific atmospheres and direct their attention to the stage or specific points of that stage. I think the idea of the Globe is to force artists to work harder to make people concentrate on the text, on the words, rather than experience emotions with the help of artificial enhancements.
If this is really the case, then the rules must be followed. Otherwise it would be like allowing football players to also score goals with their hands.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Oct 25, 2016 11:55:03 GMT
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.
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Oct 25, 2016 12:01:54 GMT
I would be really sorry if Emma was not professionally treated by the board - I don't know all the facts to be able to say anything about that. And what I write below must be taken with a pinch of salt, as my comments are made from the precarious position of someone who never saw any of Emma's work in the Globe. Having said that, it seems to me that we must focus on the Globe's raison d'être, goals and rules. What was the Globe originally designed for? As space for theatre in general, ANY theatre, any experimental theatrical art form? Or was it designed as stated above for a specific type of "radical experiment to explore the conditions within which Shakespeare and his contemporaries worked." If the latter was the case, the whole point is to be creative without modern devices and technology, such as designed sound and lighting. This is a challenge in itself, considering how modern audiences are used to controlled theatrical spaces, geared with modern equipment designed to create specific atmospheres and direct their attention to the stage or specific points of that stage. I think the idea of the Globe is to force artists to work harder to make people concentrate on the text, on the words, rather than experience emotions with the help of artificial enhancements. If this is really the case, then the rules must be followed. Otherwise it would be like allowing football players to also score goals with their hands. Its not like she made the changes without the board approval. I assume it came up in the interview! If that was a pre-requisite for the Job, why appoint her at all??? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 12:10:57 GMT
I didn't see any of Rice's productions at the Globe (wasn't ferociously against them, just wasn't that tempted by them) and I thought some of the quotes she gave early on were ill-advised.
However, as mentioned above, the recruiting team must have known what they were getting when they hired her. And to allow only such a short space of time for innovation is ridiculous. As someone who's currently part of a team driving change in her own conservative sector, and coming up against similar barriers, I have nothing but sympathy for her as regards the way in which this is being handled. Given recent news stories, it would appear the 'female creative falling afoul of elderly white male prejudice' has played a part, too. Sad but not unexpected.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Oct 25, 2016 12:14:45 GMT
I would be really sorry if Emma was not professionally treated by the board - I don't know all the facts to be able to say anything about that. And what I write below must be taken with a pinch of salt, as my comments are made from the precarious position of someone who never saw any of Emma's work in the Globe. Having said that, it seems to me that we must focus on the Globe's raison d'être, goals and rules. What was the Globe originally designed for? As space for theatre in general, ANY theatre, any experimental theatrical art form? Or was it designed as stated above for a specific type of "radical experiment to explore the conditions within which Shakespeare and his contemporaries worked." If the latter was the case, the whole point is to be creative without modern devices and technology, such as designed sound and lighting. This is a challenge in itself, considering how modern audiences are used to controlled theatrical spaces, geared with modern equipment designed to create specific atmospheres and direct their attention to the stage or specific points of that stage. I think the idea of the Globe is to force artists to work harder to make people concentrate on the text, on the words, rather than experience emotions with the help of artificial enhancements. If this is really the case, then the rules must be followed. Otherwise it would be like allowing football players to also score goals with their hands. Its not like she made the changes without the board approval. I assume it came up in the interview! If that was a pre-requisite for the Job, why appoint her at all??? Quite. There will be a lot more to it than is in the press release, no doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 12:17:24 GMT
I didn't see any of Rice's productions at the Globe (wasn't ferociously against them, just wasn't that tempted by them) and I thought some of the quotes she gave early on were ill-advised. However, as mentioned above, the recruiting team must have known what they were getting when they hired her. And to allow only such a short space of time for innovation is ridiculous. As someone who's currently part of a team driving change in her own conservative sector, and coming up against similar barriers, I have nothing but sympathy for her as regards the way in which this is being handled. Given recent news stories, it would appear the 'female creative falling afoul of elderly white male prejudice' has played a part, too. Sad but not unexpected. The Globe board aren't all elderly white males though are they? Current Board Lord Bichard KBC (Chair) Iraj Ispahani (Deputy Chair) Emma Stenning (Deputy Chair) Danny Witter (Hon. Treasurer) Zoë Wanamaker CBE (Honorary President) Lord Blair of Boughton David Butter Dr Martin Clarke Lord Falconer Cynthia Hall Daniel Heaf Philip Kirkpatrick Joanna Mackle Professor Laurie Maguire Dame Anne Pringle Dame Rachel de Souza Jenny Topper OBE |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 12:18:26 GMT
The thing is it was down to the board (and original writing of artistic vision/remit) to make clear what they wanted- the traditional or innovation AND the board needs to be clear on whether, that original remit still stands or if after x number of years it's time for a change. If it isn't, fine business as usual and hire someone for business as usual. Hiring Rice suggested they did want a change.
It makes them look like:
Globe Board: We want new and exciting things now we've done the other thing.
Emma Rice: Does new and different things as her previous work would suggest.
Globe Board: No not like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 12:26:11 GMT
I didn't see any of Rice's productions at the Globe (wasn't ferociously against them, just wasn't that tempted by them) and I thought some of the quotes she gave early on were ill-advised. However, as mentioned above, the recruiting team must have known what they were getting when they hired her. And to allow only such a short space of time for innovation is ridiculous. As someone who's currently part of a team driving change in her own conservative sector, and coming up against similar barriers, I have nothing but sympathy for her as regards the way in which this is being handled. Given recent news stories, it would appear the 'female creative falling afoul of elderly white male prejudice' has played a part, too. Sad but not unexpected. The Globe board aren't all elderly white males though are they? Current Board Lord Bichard KBC (Chair) Iraj Ispahani (Deputy Chair) Emma Stenning (Deputy Chair) Danny Witter (Hon. Treasurer) Zoë Wanamaker CBE (Honorary President) Lord Blair of Boughton David Butter Dr Martin Clarke Lord Falconer Cynthia Hall Daniel Heaf Philip Kirkpatrick Joanna Mackle Professor Laurie Maguire Dame Anne Pringle Dame Rachel de Souza Jenny Topper OBE I think it was more the critical response she was referring to in the news stories? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 12:26:52 GMT
The thing is it was down to the board (and original writing of artistic vision/remit) to make clear what they wanted- the traditional or innovation AND the board needs to be clear on whether, that original remit still stands or if after x number of years it's time for a change. If it isn't, fine business as usual and hire someone for business as usual. Hiring Rice suggested they did want a change. It makes them look like: Globe Board: We want new and exciting things now we've done the other thing. Emma Rice: Does new and different things as her previous work would suggest. Globe Board: No not like that. It appears, from reading between the lines of the statement, that the board is absolutely split. Maybe one person made the difference then and now. Why and how they were swayed then we might have to wait another year to find out (though hoping that someone spills the behind the scenes shenanigans before that). Too late for The Globe now though, they must have expected this sort of reaction given that they tried to hide it behind the new season announcement. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 12:30:36 GMT
Wow, what a weird board - I'd never bothered to look it up before. I once briefly worked for an organisation at which Michael Bichard had been the leader and there were mixed views on his abilities, to say the least. It seems a strange choice for such a high profile organisation.
A lot of bankers, as well. Not that I'm saying bankers can't be good at managing theatres. But it's not uncommon for organisations to recruit under-qualified rich people to their boards in the hope of a generous donation...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 12:35:28 GMT
I think it was more the critical response she was referring to in the news stories? Ah, gotcha! |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 25, 2016 12:37:50 GMT
The thing is it was down to the board (and original writing of artistic vision/remit) to make clear what they wanted- the traditional or innovation AND the board needs to be clear on whether, that original remit still stands or if after x number of years it's time for a change. If it isn't, fine business as usual and hire someone for business as usual. Hiring Rice suggested they did want a change. It makes them look like: Globe Board: We want new and exciting things now we've done the other thing. Emma Rice: Does new and different things as her previous work would suggest. Globe Board: No not like that. 'New and exciting' does not necessarily mean changing the fundamentals of the building, though. I suspect that there was an assumption that whoever applied for the Globe job wanted to work at the Globe because it's the Globe. If you assume that, you don't expect the building itself to be changed to fit the AD's vision, you expect the AD to adapt to the building. I know very little about Emma Rice, and have seen very little of her previous work, but I assumed that the people who howled about her being all wrong when she was appointed had missed the point, and that she would be adapting her previous style to fit the building. I assumed the challenge of that was what drew her to the job. Clearly this is something that should have been explicitly discussed, but it would not surprise me if it was just so taken for granted that it wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 12:44:18 GMT
The Stage is back online again, some choice quotes from the head of Stage Directors UK and support for Rice from the unexpected quarter of Quentin Letts....
As for heresy let us not forget that the first AD at the Globe didn't even believe that Shakespeare wrote the plays (wrongly and a much more dangerous position to take than anything said by Rice). Changing the fabric of the theatre was also fine when Dromgoole frequently reconfigured the space, adding all sorts of extra bits and pieces.
I also don't buy the angle about it being about shared light and such, it's likely to be a deeper, more fundamental issue and I imagine that it goes back to the large scale donors that effectively control matters at The Globe.
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by ldm2016 on Oct 25, 2016 12:51:56 GMT
Shocking news. It's a shame they seem so resistant to change, but then The Globe are usually known for traditional staging aren't they. I don't think they're resistant to change but, on the contrary, have allowed change to take over far too much.
From 'Carry on Hamlet' to the latest travesty of Cymbeline there is no doubt that they have allowed unrelenting change but maybe (hopefully) they have realised that enough is enough.
|
|
