2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 19, 2017 15:46:38 GMT
Because ( reading between the lines0 they gave her an ultimatum as a change to what was previously agreed, and she quit because of it. that's the essence of what I mean by constructive dismissal.
'The fact that Emma has been stopped in fulfilling her ambitions is heart-breaking. It is also wrong'
Doesn't seem anything than supportive of her tbh!
I see. Thank you for clarifying.
It actually IS heart-breaking. In general sense. But making The Globe all tacky and drilling in those barbaric sound systems with her Dream is much more heart-breaking.. I have nothing against her personally (not my style of directing, obv, but tastes are different), she is just a wrong person fo this particular job, that's it. Ah, that's fair enough. Its a subjective thing really as to if you like her stuff, I just find it stupid by the Globe to hire her when it was clear what sort of work she would be doing, let her have one overall successful season, and then basically force her out with no plans as to what happens next and in such a badly handled manner.
|
|
376 posts
|
Post by sherriebythesea on Apr 19, 2017 15:56:41 GMT
Rather reminds me of our (US) recent Presidential election. Some people voted for a person who was quite specific in saying that he wanted to do and then those same people are so surprised and dismayed that he's trying to do exactly what he said he was going to do.
That's as far as the comparison goes as I'm sure that Emma Rice isn't an orange haired baboon like our present President.
|
|
5,020 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Apr 19, 2017 16:07:12 GMT
Rather reminds me of our (US) recent Presidential election. Some people voted for a person who was quite specific in saying that he wanted to do and then those same people are so surprised and dismayed that he's trying to do exactly what he said he was going to do. That's as far as the comparison goes as I'm sure that Emma Rice isn't an orange haired baboon like our present President. Why is it OK to criticise Trumps' hair but not Rice's even more elaborate thatch ? Discuss. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Apr 19, 2017 16:08:05 GMT
"The only people who have the moral strength to get rid of you are the audience. No-one else, not the board, not your supposed colleagues, not the vulture punditry, just the audience."
What nonsense. Of course the board has the moral, and legal, right to get rid of the artistic director, within employment law of course, if they consider it to be in the best interests of the theatre. Who do they think they are, God?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 16:16:22 GMT
I don't think Emma Rice thinks she's God, I think she just thought the board understood who Emma Rice was and the sort of things Emma Rice does when they decided to appoint Emma Rice as artistic director, and is therefore somewhat taken that the board has turned around and declared Emma Rice to be unacceptable after all. I don't think they've necessarily pushed her out (and you can resign yourself from a job and still have been pushed out) maliciously, but if they haven't, then they appointed her misguidedly in the first place. Whichever way, it seems that the brunt of the blame has been placed on the board, and I don't think that's unfair at all. This whole thing went badly wrong somewhere along the lines (all roads seeming to lead back to Rome), and if it hadn't then no one would be having to question anyone's morals at all.
|
|
831 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Apr 19, 2017 16:28:50 GMT
zahidf, agree on this! The question of why hiring her in the first place still stands. The Board made fools of themselves, yes, but if they risked it to appear "bad guys" it means they really do care about Globe's authencity. But then again.. why let a radical in if you are against the idea.. makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Apr 19, 2017 16:42:14 GMT
I don't think Emma Rice thinks she's God, I think she just thought the board understood who Emma Rice was and the sort of things Emma Rice does when they decided to appoint Emma Rice as artistic director, and is therefore somewhat taken that the board has turned around and declared Emma Rice to be unacceptable after all. I don't think they've necessarily pushed her out (and you can resign yourself from a job and still have been pushed out) maliciously, but if they haven't, then they appointed her misguidedly in the first place. Whichever way, it seems that the brunt of the blame has been placed on the board, and I don't think that's unfair at all. This whole thing went badly wrong somewhere along the lines (all roads seeming to lead back to Rome), and if it hadn't then no one would be having to question anyone's morals at all. Honestly, I don't see how you're possibly in a position to judge what happened, what they asked or told her in interview, what she asked or told them, who's to blame.
My comment was on Dromgoole saying no-one had the moral right to get rid of an ad except the audience. Utter nonsense.
|
|
5,020 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Apr 19, 2017 16:42:59 GMT
Both sound very full of themselves don't they.
You need to be to run a theatre company I would assume, to a degree
Yes. I am reminded of this delightful tribute from Trader Faulkner's book: "Trevor Nunn and Peter Hall have followed similar career paths, and when you're in those powerful positions no consideration can be given to secondary issues like friendship or loyalty". |
|
5,020 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Apr 19, 2017 16:44:39 GMT
"The only people who have the moral strength to get rid of you are the audience. NOW they tell me ! I could have stopped Peter Gill 30 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 17:29:42 GMT
So the ridiculous 'shared light' explanation proves, as expected, to be nothing like the whole story. Someone needs to name names and those who have destabilised the company in this way need to be outed. Only then will they be able to move on with a new sense of purpose.
EDIT: not wanting details but what on earth have people got against Dromgoole that they still appear to be after him a year or more later?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 17:57:14 GMT
Just stay away from the place after April 2018, please. I shall.
|
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Apr 19, 2017 18:48:10 GMT
So the ridiculous 'shared light' explanation proves, as expected, to be nothing like the whole story. Someone needs to name names and those who have destabilised the company in this way need to be outed. Only then will they be able to move on with a new sense of purpose. EDIT: not wanting details but what on earth have people got against Dromgoole that they still appear to be after him a year or more later? I imagine Dromgoole is referring to the rather lukewarm review of his 'Globe to Globe Hamlet' book in the Guardian last week from Andrew Dickson who (gasp) also has a book out on the same topic. |
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Apr 19, 2017 18:49:17 GMT
It's almost like, just as the waters calmed for the Globe's PR department after a year of awfulness, they thought 'I know, let's make ourselves look awful again the national press by telling the world how awful we've all been, on our own website! That should keep us busy for a few more months!'
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 21:08:43 GMT
What was in Mark Rylance's Letter that deterred Shakespeare's Globe from posting it in their blog?
|
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Apr 20, 2017 19:39:18 GMT
What was in Mark Rylance's Letter that deterred Shakespeare's Globe from posting it in their blog? 'Shakespeare didn't write the plays anyway - love, Mark x' |
|
6 posts
|
Post by doradolittle on Apr 21, 2017 8:10:05 GMT
In other Globe news - anyone going to the Westminster Abbey / Globe thing this weekend?
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 21, 2017 8:32:21 GMT
In other Globe news - anyone going to the Westminster Abbey / Globe thing this weekend? I'm going this evening. Sounds intriguing! |
|
403 posts
|
Post by altamont on Apr 21, 2017 9:11:40 GMT
Yes, we're also going this evening
|
|
6 posts
|
Post by doradolittle on Apr 21, 2017 10:37:10 GMT
I wonder if the characters will interact with audience, Punchdrunk style, or whether we will be 'invisible' to them...
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Apr 21, 2017 15:02:25 GMT
Going tomorrow so any tips gratefully received.
|
|
403 posts
|
Post by altamont on Apr 21, 2017 21:00:12 GMT
My tip would be to just look forward to it - to say much else might be to spoil some of the surprises. It was a wonderful way to spend 75 minutes
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 21:08:14 GMT
If you're likely to get caught up looking at all the tombs, you may find it beneficial to do your research in advance so you don't end up pulling your phone out round the back of Henry VII's tomb. But you don't need to do any preparation. You won't see everything but it doesn't feel like missing out, and there are plenty of opportunities to experience smaller moments along with great crowd scenes. Just relax and go with it.  |
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 21, 2017 21:17:23 GMT
It was great. Its similar to punchdrunk, in that you may be lucky enough to get a private one on one. And no toilets till after!
|
|
116 posts
|
Post by alexandra on Apr 23, 2017 9:16:20 GMT
Well, that was wonderful. The very first thing that happened as I walked in was Mark Rylance asking me if I'd seen Queen Cleopatra, as he had a message for her, which morphed into the messenger scene from A&C. Closely followed by his prison speech from Richard II, next to his tomb. And then a young actor speaking a sonnet just to me, by the tomb of Edward III. Mark also spoke parts of Hamlet and Macbeth. Never thought I'd hear him play Richard II and Hamlet live again.
|
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Apr 23, 2017 10:18:27 GMT
This is ... shiny...
|
|
