Globe season Summer of Love. And Emma Rice is leaving 2018

There is reasonable doubt and reasonable doubt, I'd put the authorship 'question' at the same level as the Loch Ness monster existing. Rylance goes way beyond that level and it diminishes him and other sceptics once you do your own research into the pile of evidence that William Shakespeare of Stratford being the author is added up.

Much more interesting and backed up by analysis is the extent of collaboration, Marlowe for the Henry VI plays, Middleton's later additions to All's Well and Macbeth and now that Shakespeare did, indeed, have a hand in Arden of Faversham.

I can forgive Rylance, as he is something of an eccentric, but Derek Jacobi - one of our great acting knights - is himself the son of a tobacconist, and he can't bring himself to believe that an imaginative and well-educated glove-maker's son might also be a great writer? f*** *that* elitist bullsh*t.

So you're saying that people with no previous interest in theatre go to the Globe to watch a play, and quite possibly enjoy the experience, but that this is a bad thing?

But everyone has been falling over themselves to praise Emma Rice for 'attracting a new audience'.

Do we only want the 'right sort' of new audience now? If the new audience is on holiday, are we not interested in attracting them?

My first visit to a West End theatre was as a tourist. I have been going back for forty years now.

It is interesting how some people want to feel they are part of a cultural elite because we go to plays. But at the end of the day theatres, even the subsidised ones, are businesses with doors open to anyone who will pay; the more who pay the merrier because it guarantees the continuity of what we love. I don't care if they are locals, tourists, theatre fanatics or economic migrants. All are welcome.

Shakespeare's Globe is a not-for-profit Trust, so it's neither subsidised nor a business. That's at the root of today's news issue. Individual Board members and major donors are too disruptively influential because of its structure.

Maybe Shakespeare was the Loch Ness Monster (on drunken dare from Marlowe)? While we're discussing outlandish theories.




The Gate announced Ellen McDougall as new AD a couple of months ago (unless you mean the Gate in Dublin, which just announced Selina Cartmell as their new AD last month).

Good point. One thing you'll notice here is when people start calling a theatre person by their first name only - Emma this and Emma that - then positions are pretty entrenched.

On the "for tourists" issue, here's what Dromgoole had to say ... www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/apr/23/shakespeare-globe-dominic-dromgoole-complete-walk-william-hamlet

I want tourists to come to see plays at The Globe. We should feel immensely proud that people from all around the World want to come to London and whilst there see a Shakespeare play. Immensely proud.

However, they are coming to see Shakespeare performed properly not comedy versions of Hamlet or Cymbeline with street "dancing". We have a duty to preserve Shakespeare for future generations and preserve it in a manner similar to the way we received it. That is not to say, as I have said on this thread, that there is no room for modern interpretations of Shakespeare, but simply that The Globe should be the defender of Shakespeare in London and not a platform for directors who admit they don't like or care about his work to pervert our culture's greatest works.

The response to Emma Rice’s departure really has been something to behold hasn’t it? I respect people’s right to react in whatever way they find appropriate but can’t we just consider the fact that it just didn’t work out?

In the age of Twitter and, indeed, TheatreBoard there are a variety of opinions now available to us, 24/7. Some of the more influential and established commentators have out-done themselves though. She’s “clearly been pushed”, “it goes deeper”, “it’s not about lighting” says one. The Globe is “deeply divided” says another. I’m sure you’ll carefully lay out your evidence to support these statements won’t you? No?

We all love a conspiracy theory but this unbridled twittering is, I would imagine, deeply unhelpful to an organisation that’s going through challenging times. If you want to support The Globe’s and Emma Rice’s future then a more measured response might be more helpful.

On a few practical points. It is very easy to find the job description online. Amongst other things, it says :

[our] theatre practice is inspired by a sense of continuing experimentation and openness of approach, underpinned by a desire to reflect theatre practice of Shakespeare’s time.

and

[the job is] To ensure that the programming in the Globe Theatre and Sam Wanamaker Playhouse provide a satisfying and coherent balance of traditional, experimental and international work.

I’ll just leave that there for those who felt that a) the Globe Management were keen to stifle creativity and innovation and b) weren’t clear about their commitment to traditional ways of working too.

Secondly. On the question of innovation. Mark R and Dominic D (and their rosta of visiting directors and companies) proved time and again that innovation is possible within these parameters. It will be possible again.

Thirdly. On audiences. This has been the most interesting one for me (and many in this thread). The Globe has played to packed, diverse houses for 20 years. Just because you’re going now doesn’t mean that the audience has only now become more diverse. The Twitterverse has led us to believe that our bubble is the only bubble. Funnily enough, it’s not.

I frankly think that it’s shaming that people have been saying ‘I’ve never been before, Emma Rice got me to come and therefore this whole situation is a scandal’. The scandal is that you never came before to support this award-winning, ground-breaking, internationally-important institution. Step forward Matthew Bourne.

The theatre vs heritage vs academic debate doesn’t deserve any more airtime. The Globe was founded to deliver across all of those objectives and the previous Artistic Directors also wrestled with that balance, it seems.

Yesterday’s news was very sad indeed. But it was delivered without leaks, unseemly rushes for the door and public slanging matches. This final element was provided by ‘the audience’ who supposedly care so much that they forgot context, complexity, good grace and the power of calm reflection.