|
|
Post by learfan on Nov 16, 2019 11:42:57 GMT
Yeah, nothing there to appeal enough to make me fork out to travel to London for it. And I'm old now. I never need to see another Romeo and Juliet again, especially not another with all white & too old casting. As has been mentioned before, the NT under Norris is not programming for the likes of us:experienced "old school" theatregoers who want to see the canon of Shakespeare, Shaw, Ibsen, Chekhov, Moliere and the like, with good casts and creatives. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 16, 2019 11:57:43 GMT
Shakespeare, Shaw, Ibsen, Chekhov, Moliere and the like But there's plenty of that elsewhere - Ibsen and Chekhov seem to be on constantly at the moment (I recently saw two at the RX Manchester the same day - a 'straight', touring Cherry Orchard in the main house and Rashdash's Three Sisters in the studio). I think it's good our National Theatre is supporting and bringing on living writers rather than just the illustrious dead. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 12:25:19 GMT
Ok to sum up, people are complaining that Norris has programmed Romeo and Juliet, and people are also complaining that he’s not programming enough Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 16, 2019 12:48:50 GMT
the historical Richard was not massively affected by his scoliosis - being very able in battle - there is not much risk of a major casting backlash (and if there is, it will be from people who are intent on being outraged rather than understanding what is really important) The play's character isn't the historical version though, and I do think there is strong feeling now that 'cripping up' is becoming as unacceptable as 'blacking up', given that there are a lot of actors with disabilities who face discrimination in the industry (I know a writer who wasn't even able to see the play they'd written because the theatre wasn't physically accessible! Many theatres, esp. studio theatres and festivals, where young actors, writers, directors get started don't have access). The Donmar's Teenage Dick has cast actors with disabilities. Yes, I don't want a scenario where actors are only allowed to play what they are, e.g. a straight actor isn't allowed to play gay and vice versa, but the aim and hope is to have the disability equivalent of colourblind casting, which is now the norm in theatre. Until that's achieved though, I think giving one of the most famous disabled roles to a non-disabled actor would be controversial. The NT has a broad audience and I doubt more than a small minority of it would regard Richard III being played by a non-disabled actor as being in the slightest bit controversial, so there should be no barrier to them doing it. Those who do, when Kathryn Hunter played the role was it a problem for you she wasn’t disabled ? Or does one minority take precedence over another ? Also colourblind casting isn’t really the norm now - for example the current Death of a Salesman is the exact opposite of colourblind casting. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 16, 2019 13:11:27 GMT
I doubt more than a small minority of it would regard Richard III being played by a non-disabled actor as being in the slightest bit controversial That's just the point. 30 years ago they wouldn't have been bothered about a 'blackface' Othello either. Also colourblind casting isn’t really the norm now It is at many theatres unless the play is very specifically about a certain racial/cultural experience (as with YV Salesman or The Ferryman), and increasingly in TV (the BBC Les Mis for example, and the new David Copperfield). |
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Nov 16, 2019 13:41:23 GMT
I'm really looking forward to all the new stuff, particularly R&J with the the excellent Josh O' Connor. Also Godwin has done some of the best productions of recent years.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 16, 2019 13:51:34 GMT
the historical Richard was not massively affected by his scoliosis - being very able in battle - there is not much risk of a major casting backlash (and if there is, it will be from people who are intent on being outraged rather than understanding what is really important) The play's character isn't the historical version though, and I do think there is strong feeling now that 'cripping up' is becoming as unacceptable as 'blacking up', given that there are a lot of actors with disabilities who face discrimination in the industry (I know a writer who wasn't even able to see the play they'd written because the theatre wasn't physically accessible! Many theatres, esp. studio theatres and festivals, where young actors, writers, directors get started don't have access). The Donmar's Teenage Dick has cast actors with disabilities. Yes, I don't want a scenario where actors are only allowed to play what they are, e.g. a straight actor isn't allowed to play gay and vice versa, but the aim and hope is to have the disability equivalent of colourblind casting, which is now the norm in theatre. Until that's achieved though, I think giving one of the most famous disabled roles to a non-disabled actor would be controversial. You are assuming a very narrow presentation of the character. Other than a few lines, there is scarcely any reference to the nature of any physical disability with the Richard in the text (and those that are are very clearly Tudor propaganda) - yes, the opening speech mentions being deformed but not the nature of it. You can play the character without any visually obvious 'deformities' at all and the play still works. The real 'deformity' in the character is how his brain is programmed. It is wrong to assume that you have to adopt a massive hump and a prosthetic nose or scamper around on crutches to be Richard III. The role isn't a "disabled" role - it is a great character role with charm, wit, intelligence and a very warped world view. As long as the actor can convey all of that, it matters not whether they have a disability or not. And, of course, not all disabilities are visible. |
|
901 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Nov 16, 2019 13:54:24 GMT
Yeah, nothing there to appeal enough to make me fork out to travel to London for it. And I'm old now. I never need to see another Romeo and Juliet again, especially not another with all white & too old casting. As has been mentioned before, the NT under Norris is not programming for the likes of us:experienced "old school" theatregoers who want to see the canon of Shakespeare, Shaw, Ibsen, Chekhov, Moliere and the like, with good casts and creatives. Really? Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra and Twelfth Night, Macbeth, Tartuffe, The Visit, Three Sisters, Hedda Gabler, Peter Gynt, Exit the King, Julie. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Nov 16, 2019 14:25:59 GMT
You are assuming a very narrow presentation of the character. Other than a few lines, there is scarcely any reference to the nature of any physical disability with the Richard in the text (and those that are are very clearly Tudor propaganda) - yes, the opening speech mentions being deformed but not the nature of it. You can play the character without any visually obvious 'deformities' at all and the play still works. The real 'deformity' in the character is how his brain is programmed. It is wrong to assume that you have to adopt a massive hump and a prosthetic nose or scamper around on crutches to be Richard III. The role isn't a "disabled" role - it is a great character role with charm, wit, intelligence and a very warped world view. As long as the actor can convey all of that, it matters not whether they have a disability or not. And, of course, not all disabilities are visible. His opening speech is very explicit about his visible disability, as are other characters throughout - elvish-mark'd abortive rooting hog etc.. Not all disabilities are visible - mine isn't - but his famously shows in his shadow and he is visibly different enough from others to make dogs bark etc... . In the 'prequel' Henry VI he's even more explicit, describing his arms, legs and back. We're talking about a play written in an era that still had Fisher King notions about the monarch's body, and in many cultures disability is still viewed with superstition (I remember a horrible experience with a visibly disabled friend and a London mini cab driver). He attributes his personality to the way society treats him and marginalises him. |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Nov 16, 2019 15:15:32 GMT
Ok to sum up, people are complaining that Norris has programmed Romeo and Juliet, and people are also complaining that he’s not programming enough Shakespeare Completely agree. Design one season and a portion of the public will say you're being elitist and using public money for a niche artform; go in another direction and others will say you're rejecting traditional theatre-goers to appeal to the masses. Have too many established plays and some will say that public money should be bringing in new British authors; too many new shows and they'll say you're ignoring the classics. Play around with the casting and some will complain of 'diversity for its own sake'; be too straight and others will complain about a lack of diverse roles. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't state their gripes on social media like TheatreBoard, but I can imagine that running an organisation like the NT must at times be a rather demoralising & thankless task. |
|
1,863 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Nov 16, 2019 16:33:51 GMT
By definition the National Theatre cannot please all of the people all of the time.
We are a complex nation of 66m individuals, as a Welshman I could complain about the lack of a Welsh writers etc.
The plays announced this week on initial impression do not excite me but this does not mean it hasn’t and will not excite me again in the future.
My play of the year was at the National, the multiculturalism of Nine Nights and Small Island, the privilege of Hansard, the poverty of Faith Hope and Charity and plenty more means that on the whole the National traverses our complex nation in a way that has to be applauded.
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 16, 2019 16:45:53 GMT
Completely agree. Design one season and a portion of the public will say you're being elitist and using public money for a niche artform; go in another direction and others will say you're rejecting traditional theatre-goers to appeal to the masses. Have too many established plays and some will say that public money should be bringing in new British authors; too many new shows and they'll say you're ignoring the classics. Play around with the casting and some will complain of 'diversity for its own sake'; be too straight and others will complain about a lack of diverse roles. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't state their gripes on social media like TheatreBoard, but I can imagine that running an organisation like the NT must at times be a rather demoralising & thankless task. The best approach IMO is one where you accept you can't please everyone and ignore the moaners. |
|
5,058 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Nov 16, 2019 17:45:15 GMT
the historical Richard was not massively affected by his scoliosis - being very able in battle - there is not much risk of a major casting backlash (and if there is, it will be from people who are intent on being outraged rather than understanding what is really important) The play's character isn't the historical version though, and I do think there is strong feeling now that 'cripping up' is becoming as unacceptable as 'blacking up', given that there are a lot of actors with disabilities who face discrimination in the industry (I know a writer who wasn't even able to see the play they'd written because the theatre wasn't physically accessible! Many theatres, esp. studio theatres and festivals, where young actors, writers, directors get started don't have access). The Donmar's Teenage Dick has cast actors with disabilities. Yes, I don't want a scenario where actors are only allowed to play what they are, e.g. a straight actor isn't allowed to play gay and vice versa, but the aim and hope is to have the disability equivalent of colourblind casting, which is now the norm in theatre. Until that's achieved though, I think giving one of the most famous disabled roles to a non-disabled actor would be controversial. I don’t disagree and feel often exasperated when seeing a play and an artist who is in a wheelchair, then at the end stand up to take a bow. But Richard III can be played by an able bodied actor. Ok to sum up, people are complaining that Norris has programmed Romeo and Juliet, and people are also complaining that he’s not programming enough Shakespeare This would be more, complained on the last artistic announcement that it was all new plays and no revivals including the Bard. However Romeo and Juliet is a blatant cash in as it is a popular piece, as it is on the GCSE curriculum and I am with Simon it is my least favourite of the tragedies. This is a plaque of both my houses, which I find Romo and Juliet to be too wet. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Nov 16, 2019 18:30:44 GMT
To be fair, the majority of wheelchair users are not paralysed/amputees. Many people who legitimately need and use a wheelchair are capable of standing at least briefly or taking a few steps, and there’s a lot of body policing over it. There was a thread earlier this year where posters assumed an actor was able-bodied just because he stood for the curtain call but the actor actually had cerebral palsy.
But you do make a fair point, if an actor stands from a wheelchair it’s more likely it is an able-bodied actor using a prop, and my heart sinks at that too.
|
|
901 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Nov 17, 2019 12:08:19 GMT
If the National were going to do Richard III again they'd want a big name actor. The three actors I've seen do it in London are Anton Lesser, Ian McKellen and Kevin Spacey. I'd be keen to see Michael Sheen, Andrew Scott, Ben Whishaw in the role...
|
|
491 posts
|
Post by djdan14 on Nov 17, 2019 12:46:53 GMT
I've been a bit underwhelmed in the recent past by some of the seasons but there are 5 shows I would love to see next year: The Visit Jack Absolute Flies Again The Welkin Manor All of Us Strong casts, a lot of new writing. That’s my list too! I’m pleased with thiis announcement and this will probably be the most I’ve ever had booked for the Nash at once. |
|
156 posts
|
Post by meister on Nov 18, 2019 14:09:37 GMT
Anyone know when the AMEX presale for the new season starts?
|
|
|
|
Post by theatremad on Nov 20, 2019 9:12:42 GMT
Tried logging in this morning but saying on sale to members, obviously haven't corrected my membership level
|
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Nov 20, 2019 9:43:37 GMT
Priority booking for members for the latest announcement is this Friday at 8.30am
|
|
|
|
Post by theatremad on Nov 20, 2019 10:10:07 GMT
I'm a Young Patron Premium, I was being unclear
|
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Nov 22, 2019 8:48:22 GMT
Either Jack Absolute is selling very well to members or they are holding a lot of seats back - most of the best seats in the stalls already gone by the time I got to the head of the queue this morning for several dates early in the run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 22, 2019 8:59:31 GMT
Either Jack Absolute is selling very well to members or they are holding a lot of seats back - most of the best seats in the stalls already gone by the time I got to the head of the queue this morning for several dates early in the run. When the Donmar used to be very popular when Michael Grandage was there things used to sell out almost instantly, even for members, and at the shows I always used to look at who was occupying the seats that had already been "sold" when I had booked, and they were often people you couldn't even imagine sitting at computers waiting for 10:00 to tick over. I concluded there was all sorts going on behind the scenes over ticket allocation and membership schemes and sponsors tickets and agents tickets. The Almeida is a theatre where consistently over recent years I've got much better situated full-price tickets on public booking rather than members booking - why let members have the best seats when they'll buy the less good ones ? |
|
1,238 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Nov 22, 2019 10:15:31 GMT
Either Jack Absolute is selling very well to members or they are holding a lot of seats back - most of the best seats in the stalls already gone by the time I got to the head of the queue this morning for several dates early in the run. When the Donmar used to be very popular when Michael Grandage was there things used to sell out almost instantly, even for members, and at the shows I always used to look at who was occupying the seats that had already been "sold" when I had booked, and they were often people you couldn't even imagine sitting at computers waiting for 10:00 to tick over. I concluded there was all sorts going on behind the scenes over ticket allocation and membership schemes and sponsors tickets and agents tickets. The Almeida is a theatre where consistently over recent years I've got much better situated full-price tickets on public booking rather than members booking - why let members have the best seats when they'll buy the less good ones ? Yes, the Littleton and the Olivier both have a rather large swathe (cube shaped) block of central stalls seating held off for every show for board and corporate types. You'll notice the unsold ones tend to come back the week of a show. Theatremonkey might know the exact amount, but it's very obvious the holds in these two auditoriums when you go on to book. The question, as you rightly ask, is why should we have to be pushed back or to the sides for these people? It's not like whatever activities their providing for the National are bringing down the ticket or food prices there for everyone. |
|
1,863 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Nov 22, 2019 10:41:46 GMT
Busier than expected this morning, managed to pick up cheap seats for Jack Absolute and Manor but as @n1david said there weren’t that many available.
|
|
39 posts
|
Post by pochard on Nov 22, 2019 11:07:15 GMT
Having managed to actually get on the NT booking this morning almost on time (not an easy call in my job), I managed to pick up a cheapo for Manor, but nothing at all for Jack Absolute. Infact I can't actually remember when I last had one of those at the Olivier; it was the way I managed to take a punt on a lot of things at the National but now it's dead certs only (and that's not so obvious anymore!) The priority membership seems less and less worth it these days.
|
|
