2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jan 5, 2020 19:06:38 GMT
That article though... yeessh, Duffy saying volunteers should be privileged to work in the arts just gets my goat. Hare hasn't had a good play in years either...
It's an american perspective on things so as an article is somewhat incomplete. Some interesting points mind you
|
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jan 5, 2020 19:36:34 GMT
It's an american perspective on things so as an article is somewhat incomplete Although the writer is British and wrote for the New Statesman for many years, including doing many of their theatre reviews. Obviously she's had to tailor this article for a predominantly US audience but she has covered UK theatre for a while and has written before about the role of the subsidised theatre in the UK. Having said that, I too found this a curiously unfocused article where she's got a number of good quotes but doesn't seem to have her own perspective. Have to admit I'm with Dr Jan above - I'm at the NT much less than before, in part because aspects of the programme are less appealing to me (and I'm OK with that), but with the increased price levels (and the generous ticket return policy) I'm less inclined to take a chance on something which might be borderline for me. I'm sure I've missed interesting stuff, but I've also dodged a few bullets in the last few years. |
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Jan 5, 2020 20:17:51 GMT
One of Norris’ pressing concerns has been to diminish the hegemony of the middle class, middle age audience it was relying on He's still relying on it to fund everything else via dynamic pricing, as per his interview. As I am male, white, middle-aged and wealthy I'm exactly the sort of audience he doesn't want (despite the fact that he is the same) and to be fair to him he has succeeded brilliantly at this, I've been to NT three times in the last two years and two of those I wish I'd missed (his awful Macbeth and the badly-judged Mr Gum) - that's down by about 15 productions on two-year periods in the Hytner and all previous regimes - all of those at top price tickets. So, fair play to him. Some things I might be interested in (Three Sisters) is now priced so stupidly for people not qualifying for a discount that I won't be bothering. More interesting work for me is now in the non-subsidised sector (Old Vic, Globe, Orange Tree, Jermyn Street, Bridge etc.). Apart from the wealthy bit, i tick the same boxes Jan! Sadly the NT is not somewhere i go anymore. Clearly Norris is after a different audience and it amy work though with those prices i doubt it. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 5, 2020 20:50:52 GMT
I’m confused. What is diversity in the theatre? If I remember correctly, the audience at Small Island was more or less the same as all the audiences at the NT. I usually play a game of counting the number of people under 40. Mind you I do sit in the stalls. So is it that the work is about different communities or that the audience is more of a mixture of London’s communities? I’m using Small Island as the example because it was really first class and yes, we all went didn’t we? The experience in the play couldn’t be more far away from my own but it was universal and didn't shove down your throat with a ‘message’. Of course it was adapted from a brilliant book. But My Brilliant Friend was adapted from a book too but as a drama much less satisfying. So formula don’t rock it, it has to be the actual drama. What I’m trying to say, I think, is that driving me away by saying the work is for another kind of Londoner, is self defeating. Good work is for everyone.
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jan 5, 2020 21:17:59 GMT
I’m confused. What is diversity in the theatre? If I remember correctly, the audience at Small Island was more or less the same as all the audiences at the NT. I usually play a game of counting the number of people under 40. Mind you I do sit in the stalls. So is it that the work is about different communities or that the audience is more of a mixture of London’s communities? I’m using Small Island as the example because it was really first class and yes, we all went didn’t we? The experience in the play couldn’t be more far away from my own but it was universal and didn't shove down your throat with a ‘message’. Of course it was adapted from a brilliant book. But My Brilliant Friend was adapted from a book too but as a drama much less satisfying. So formula don’t rock it, it has to be the actual drama. What I’m trying to say, I think, is that driving me away by saying the work is for another kind of Londoner, is self defeating. Good work is for everyone. FWIW, wasnt small island shown to have more first time theatre goers? Something like nine night is a good example of high quality diversity. So is the new three sisters from what I saw. Something like the suicide is an example of it going wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 5, 2020 21:50:47 GMT
Just in terms of audience, Small Island was quite interesting. I spoke to people at work who you might have thought might like to go and they didn't. Many of that Windrush generation, and others who came in the 1960s as young adults, have gone - either died, old and tired, or retired back to the Caribbean. Their children, the ones I know anyway, aren't overly interested without mum and dad, or gran. Made me realise it was, from some perspectives, something of a nostalgia piece.
In contrast, the Nigerians are very curious about Three Sisters, and in fact anything to do with west Africa - so many first generation families in south London. Good turn out when I went. I had a £15 jobbie and goodness me, there was a whole ream right there for the bad behavior thread - shouting out to the actors and all sorts. Thoroughly engaged, though.
tbh, it might be a bit soon for the South Americans - the chldren obv. have language skills but it gets thinner as you go up in age.
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jan 5, 2020 22:04:21 GMT
Just in terms of audience, Small Island was quite interesting. I spoke to people at work who you might have thought might like to go and they didn't. Many of that Windrush generation, and others who came in the 1960s as young adults, have gone - either died, old and tired, or retired back to the Caribbean. Their children, the ones I know anyway, aren't overly interested without mum and dad, or gran. Made me realise it was, from some perspectives, something of a nostalgia piece. In contrast, the Nigerians are very curious about Three Sisters, and in fact anything to do with west Africa - so many first generation families in south London. Good turn out when I went. I had a £15 jobbie and goodness me, there was a whole ream right there for the bad behavior thread - shouting out to the actors and all sorts. Thoroughly engaged, though. tbh, it might be a bit soon for the South Americans - the chldren obv. have language skills but it gets thinner as you go up in age. Master harold would be an interesting one as well |
|
5,026 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Jan 6, 2020 7:17:39 GMT
He doesn't want you except to subsidise the cheaper tix for others - some cognitive dissonance there, surely? From him, yes. |
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Jan 6, 2020 14:03:40 GMT
Someone mentioned above the NT's generous returns policy. If Rufus was really serious about getting rid of the white middle aged, middle class (WMAMC) he should do away with this policy. I doubt many of us would book far in advance without the comfort blanket of being able to return tickets at will.
Also, what percentage of members are WMAMC? I'd wager a lot, especially at higher levels. He's happy to take our money for this (well, not mine any more).
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jan 6, 2020 14:38:37 GMT
I don't really understand why people takes Norris's policies of expanding and diversifying the national's productions so personally. All theatres want to get in younger/more diverse audiences.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jan 6, 2020 14:45:09 GMT
I'm surprised that people seem to be talking, not in terms of the NT trying to encourage a broader group of people to come to the National, but suggesting that Norris actually 'doesn't want' white, male, middle-aged or well off people in the audience. As though the policy is not simply to widen access to those that may not have usually gone to the National, but to actively restrict access to those that already do.
Apologies, I must have missed this change in policy, but if anyone has the relevant quote from the NT or Norris himself, that would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
5,026 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Jan 6, 2020 16:38:55 GMT
I'm surprised that people seem to be talking, not in terms of the NT trying to encourage a broader group of people to come to the National, but suggesting that Norris actually 'doesn't want' white, male, middle-aged or well off people in the audience. As though the policy is not simply to widen access to those that may not have usually gone to the National, but to actively restrict access to those that already do. Apologies, I must have missed this change in policy, but if anyone has the relevant quote from the NT or Norris himself, that would be greatly appreciated. He’s running at 91% capacity so he can’t “expand” his audience - he can only bring in more under-represented groups by having fewer of the over-represented groups. Simple maths. One way he does it is to offer discounts only to selected groups whilst massively putting up prices for other groups. I’m not complaining, I’m just voting with my feet and my money that doesn’t go to the NT any more - his pricing policy is actively stopping me going. Of course those who benefit from his pricing policy and who like his “relevant” programming will think he’s doing a fine job, of course, but they are driven by self-interest just like me. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jan 6, 2020 17:08:14 GMT
I don't really understand why people takes Norris's policies of expanding and diversifying the national's productions so personally. All theatres want to get in younger/more diverse audiences. I'm not sure anyone here has said they're taking it personally. I explicitly said in my posting "aspects of the programme are less appealing to me (and I'm OK with that)". I do think it's right that the NT opens itself to a wider audience, and the net result of that is that I go less often than I used to. That's OK; there's plenty of other stuff to see in London. Dr Jan was making the same point. I don't think either of us are regarding what Rufus Norris is doing as a personal attack on us. Of course I'd like more people to enjoy the NT and it that means I'm going 2 or 3 times a year rather than 6 or 7, so be it. There is, however, a problem for the NT in making its sums add up if fewer people are buying top-price tickets and they don't have the Travelex sponsorship any more - they simply can't afford their current level of expenditure unless they keep the same level of ticket income (or replace it with other income, like The Understudy). That's not a complaint, it's simply an observation. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 6, 2020 17:08:42 GMT
I'm surprised that people seem to be talking, not in terms of the NT trying to encourage a broader group of people to come to the National, but suggesting that Norris actually 'doesn't want' white, male, middle-aged or well off people in the audience. As though the policy is not simply to widen access to those that may not have usually gone to the National, but to actively restrict access to those that already do. In this thread? Where? |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 6, 2020 17:16:23 GMT
He’s running at 91% capacity so he can’t “expand” his audience - he can only bring in more under-represented groups by having fewer of the over-represented groups. Simple maths. One way he does it is to offer discounts only to selected groups whilst massively putting up prices for other groups. I’m not complaining, I’m just voting with my feet and my money that doesn’t go to the NT any more - his pricing policy is actively stopping me going. Of course those who benefit from his pricing policy and who like his “relevant” programming will think he’s doing a fine job, of course, but they are driven by self-interest just like me. The NT is, in part, running a new-ish dynamic pricing strategy, it has about 7 levels of membership, it uses slow release at some point, plus, crucially, a low value currency which in my experience of the last six months has seen a huge spike in Americans, many picking up the remaining seats at top prices. Most of Northern Europe is a two-hour flight away though the £ has done less badly .vs the euro.
Ticketig a run at the NT must be a hugely sophisticated operation. To reduce it to a fixed pool of punters is a little naive.
|
|
3,580 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jan 6, 2020 17:44:50 GMT
On the membership levels point,I had recently seen something abut a type of NT membership of which I had never heard and there certainly used not to be as many as 7 levels, so if the range has been expanded, has this been publicised, especially to existing members who may as a result be lower down the pecking order (or higher up, of course) than they thought? It would also make it harder to judge which level was worth paying for to secure tickets within members' preferred price range.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jan 6, 2020 18:24:01 GMT
I'm surprised that people seem to be talking, not in terms of the NT trying to encourage a broader group of people to come to the National, but suggesting that Norris actually 'doesn't want' white, male, middle-aged or well off people in the audience. As though the policy is not simply to widen access to those that may not have usually gone to the National, but to actively restrict access to those that already do. Apologies, I must have missed this change in policy, but if anyone has the relevant quote from the NT or Norris himself, that would be greatly appreciated. He’s running at 91% capacity so he can’t “expand” his audience - he can only bring in more under-represented groups by having fewer of the over-represented groups. Simple maths. One way he does it is to offer discounts only to selected groups whilst massively putting up prices for other groups. I’m not complaining, I’m just voting with my feet and my money that doesn’t go to the NT any more - his pricing policy is actively stopping me going. Of course those who benefit from his pricing policy and who like his “relevant” programming will think he’s doing a fine job, of course, but they are driven by self-interest just like me. You're treating the long-term audience of the National as though it were a one-in-one-out packed nightclub on a single evening. As though, having reached full capacity, marketing should simply cease until someone from the audience passed away or gave up their seat. Never mind that the supply is flexible (since the NT chooses the number of performances, NT Live, whether or not to tour, and so on), and the demand is inconsistent (the audience varies from production to production).
There has always been some level of subsidisation in this way; whether it's more expensive seats allowing for other cheaper seats, or bigger & more popular plays allowing for other riskier, more experimental ones. You might feel that the pricing structure impacts on your ability to buy seats, and that the current prices specifically is the point at which you bow out. However, this is quite different from an active attempt by the NT to reduce the proportion of well-off, middle-aged, white males in general who try for tickets. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 7, 2020 7:23:42 GMT
Not to mention demand is also linked to word-of-mouth and professional reviews.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 7, 2020 10:29:06 GMT
Funding-wise, perhaps they should start releasing NT lives to buy online or DVD. The Globe does, and some RX productions are also on DVD (eg the Maxine Peak Hamlet, though I think she wasn't happy with that). People 'illegally' watch downloads of the Cumberbatch and other 'celebrity' productions - when a production has finished its run, why not cash in on the worldwide demand from fans? Some productions are currently available to schools but a theatre version of itunes would be great, and I don't think audiences would go "I'll just watch it on TV" - if anything, it's the other way around: seeing plays on screen entices people into theatres (it did with me, seeing RSC productions on TV as a kid)
|
|
24 posts
|
Post by siteseer on Jan 9, 2020 12:38:44 GMT
Just as an aside, the NT has added a performance of THE VISIT
on the 16th of March and there are a few good 15 pound tickets
available as well as other price bands.
|
|
|
|
Post by craig on Jan 9, 2020 14:30:59 GMT
Just as an aside, the NT has added a performance of THE VISIT on the 16th of March and there are a few good 15 pound tickets available as well as other price bands. Brilliant, thanks for this. Had promised my parents tickets for this for Christmas and the excellent seats at 15 pounds just saved me a fortune! |
|
24 posts
|
Post by siteseer on Feb 12, 2020 16:30:45 GMT
Loads of 30 pound tickets released for Seven Streams of the River Ota 6th-08th March.
7 hours in one of those seat may cause irreparable damage :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2020 8:34:13 GMT
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Feb 13, 2020 17:31:31 GMT
Next announcement next week
|
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Feb 13, 2020 18:38:49 GMT
Next announcement next week Maybe they will announce something worth seeing, not holding my breath. |
|
