|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2017 22:33:11 GMT
Tonight I attended a drama school (RWCMD) production of Wastwater by Simon Stephens. Acting, design and production were all effective in delivering a full experience of the play. But I remember that many of the comments about the premiere Royal Court production focused on the incredible scenic changes. The best tickets for the RWCMD cost £13 while the RCT now charges £45, the NT up to £65 and the RSC up to £72.50. As public subsidy has been reduced, production values have counter-intuitively gone up and up, and so ticket prices have been inflated to levels which are unaffordable for most people to attend regularly.
So, these subsidised flagships are using their subsidy to seed-fund extravagant productions which are affordable for fewer and fewer people. Would it not be a better use of this public subsidy if it were distributed to many many more theatre companies around the country to support productions similar to tonight's RWCMD show? There could be a thousand Orange Tree theatres producing shows affordable for everybody, instead of a handful of fat-cat flagships producing extravagant productions for a dwindling clientele of the super-rich.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 14, 2017 6:32:00 GMT
I don't think production values have gone up at RSC and NT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 7:37:18 GMT
This ignores the fact that there are many affordable seats in these theatres and that you were wripped off seeing a bunch of people who will never make it! Why does a drama school have to charge so much, surely that's the issue here?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 8:45:51 GMT
Being someone who frequently sees the high standards at RWCMD (they use professional directors and their production as HG says above is of the highest calibre.) They're also not making a profit on those ticket prices, for most shows it covers expenses and any surplus ploughed back into the organisation. I don't think £13 is unreasonable anyway- amateur companies charge far more for sometimes.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Feb 14, 2017 9:57:24 GMT
This ignores the fact that there are many affordable seats in these theatres and that you were wripped off seeing a bunch of people who will never make it! Why does a drama school have to charge so much, surely that's the issue here?!I first removed myself from my keyboard when I read this post. But I need to say something. We are people who love theatre. There have been derogatory comments recently about shows, such as Let it Shine, where kids are plucked from nowhere to supposedly do what our revered west-end/RSC/NT etc. actors take years/decades to perfect. So why would charging £13 for a highly thought-of drama school production be a rip-off? These kids are learning and, part of their learning is not only performing but organising the whole schemozzel. I would say HG was undercharged. And, how on earth do you know they "will never make it?" I've seen some amazing drama school productions. Amazing. And, as @emicardiff said, amateur groups can and do charge more. My local secondary school charges £12. Long may the drama schools have the talent and funds to continue to churn out productions of this calibre. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 10:01:56 GMT
I don't think production values have gone up at RSC and NT. As one example, both have invested heavily in digital design, with The Tempest at the RSC and the in-house digital design technology department at the NT. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 10:02:34 GMT
I saw Tamara Lawrance in a drama school production. I know I've had nothing to do with her post-graduation career, but I'm extremely proud of her anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 10:05:06 GMT
Indeed! and RWCMD puts final years into a Company, who do performances in Rep across the year, a fine way of learning their craft. And it's a college considered to be up there with the best of London drama schools, with plenty of actors 'making it' (whatever relative terms that means. And to re-iterate, they aren't making profit on this.
I'd happily play £20 or more for their productions, they're frankly superior in quality to some so-called professionals. Equally I'm happy to pay £13 or more for amateur companies if it helps sustain them and people getting a chance to perform.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 10:09:10 GMT
ripped off seeing a bunch of people who will never make it This comment is so ridiculous that it shouldn't merit a reply. Over recent years, most drama schools have developed theatres and resources so that their students can train in an environment as close as possible to the professional world. All the RWCMD productions are to professional standards, with professional direction, and many of the acting, design and production students who are in training graduate to successful careers. Incidentally, all tickets for under 25s are £6. But even the standard ticket prices are effectively subsidised by substantial funding for production costs from charitable trusts and other donations. Also, many potential audiences would be suspicious of the value or worth of attending any event with extremely low standard ticket prices. |
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Feb 14, 2017 10:12:20 GMT
ripped off seeing a bunch of people who will never make it This comment is so ridiculous that it shouldn't merit a reply. I know. And I tried not to. And failed. Miserably. Sorry. (Oh. I seem to have turned into a sideways Parsley!) |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 14, 2017 10:19:28 GMT
I don't think production values have gone up at RSC and NT. As one example, both have invested heavily in digital design, with The Tempest at the RSC and the in-house digital design technology department at the NT. Yes but that's all it is, one example. You could equally point to savings on their forthcoming Romans season by having a common set for all four. The Travelex productions at NT have strictly limited production budgets. They do the odd expensive production (Red Barn probably was due to the large stage crew) but I don't think it has changed much over the decades. I imagine still one of their most over-budget and expensive productions was (amazingly) the Peter Hall Late Shakespeare plays. I believe the reason for their disgracefully high prices is not increased production budgets. I think they are charging high prices just because they can - look at the disparity of 100% in the RSC prices for MA/LLL at the Haymarket compared with Chichester - same production. Last production I saw at ArtsEd theatre school was £12.50 - seems about right. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 10:44:14 GMT
I believe the reason for their disgracefully high prices is not increased production budgets. I think they are charging high prices just because they can - look at the disparity of 100% in the RSC prices for MA/LLL at the Haymarket compared with Chichester - same production. Yes, because they can - because they now view the commercial ticket price inflation, with premium ticketing, as a benchmark and they ignore mass affordability as a factor. But accessibility should be a core requirement of every organisation in receipt of public funding. Part of the reason for the TRH/CFT ticket price disparity is that TRH is a commercial company. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 10:52:23 GMT
I've been to see drama school productions before and they haven't been great. Maybe LMDA is a bit naff now? Surely stick on something over a hundred years old (no rights issues) andet the acting do the job?
Don't get me started on the extortionate amounts u have to pay for am dram!
Also, as HG well knows, u don't have to buy the most expensive seats when u pop to these theatres and majority do Very good seats very cheaply init thou
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 10:54:34 GMT
Partly they are simply using a proven model in order to fill a sudden gap in their income as West End transfer cash dries up. There may be more imaginative ways, but those will take longer to explore. Also, unlike the USA, there are few tax-breaks for being charitable. That maybe should be fixed as a solution. Win-Win as the taxpayer doesn't directly fund, and the break costs less than revenue lost and grants given. Something else has also irritated me, the more that I have thought about it. The NT's largescale UK touring (One Man Two Guvnors, War Horse, Curious Incident, Jane Eyre) charges commercial ticket prices and makes a profit which subsidises the NT South Bank core business. So, UK taxpayers throughout the country are paying full whack to see the shows they tour so as to subsidise the super-served London audience. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 10:59:07 GMT
Also, as HG well knows, u don't have to buy the most expensive seats when u pop to these theatres and majority do Very good seats very cheaply init thou This is a weasel argument which the subsidised companies use to justify themselves. There are only a limited number of these cheaper tickets and when they're gone the only option is the rest of the theatre at significantly less affordable prices (partly set to compensate for the very low prices). |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 14, 2017 11:03:01 GMT
Partly they are simply using a proven model in order to fill a sudden gap in their income as West End transfer cash dries up. There may be more imaginative ways, but those will take longer to explore. Also, unlike the USA, there are few tax-breaks for being charitable. That maybe should be fixed as a solution. Win-Win as the taxpayer doesn't directly fund, and the break costs less than revenue lost and grants given. Something else has also irritated me, the more that I have thought about it. The NT's largescale UK touring (One Man Two Guvnors, War Horse, Curious Incident, Jane Eyre) charges commercial ticket prices and makes a profit which subsidises the NT South Bank core business. So, UK taxpayers throughout the country are paying full whack to see the shows they tour so as to subsidise the super-served London audience. Some of those shows were not with the original cast either. I think the RSC are bigger offenders in terms of affordability and access than the NT. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 11:09:49 GMT
I think the RSC are bigger offenders in terms of affordability and access than the NT. Do you mean with the London transfers, both West End and Barbican? These seem now to be priced commercially, with each transfer season being required to break even or make a profit for the RSC. They are all additional to the core activity at the Stratford base, unlike when the RSC had two bases. |
|
716 posts
|
Post by theatre-turtle on Feb 14, 2017 11:11:28 GMT
Production values mean a lot to lay theatre goers who aren't necessarily able to discern good acting or artistic choices.
At The Red Barn the first thing people mentioned was how beautiful the staging was. It's an important part of people's impression of value for money. You can really see where the price of the ticket has gone. Otherwise you might as well watch a film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 14, 2017 11:27:43 GMT
I think the RSC are bigger offenders in terms of affordability and access than the NT. Do you mean with the London transfers, both West End and Barbican? These seem now to be priced commercially, with each transfer season being required to break even or make a profit for the RSC. They are all additional to the core activity at the Stratford base, unlike when the RSC had two bases. The RSC used to run full year-round seasons in Stratford and London, transferred a full season to Newcastle (and Plymouth for a while) and mounted an extensive tour of two plays to smaller venues throughout the country, all with subsidised ticket prices. Now they've pretty much given up on all of that, a few popular plays will get a commercial-priced London transfer along with a few scraps for the regions. Meanwhile their subsidy hasn't decreased to reflect this much lower level of activity. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 11:39:45 GMT
Actually, the few scraps for the regions are well-chosen. The A Midsummer Night's Dream co-productions with amateur companies all over the UK was a successful and monumental event. And the UK City of Culture collaboration of The Hypocrite is exciting in prospect. And there have been limited regional tours of Julius Caesar, A Mad World My Masters, The Life of Galileo and Othello in recent years. And, on the smaller new work front, Alice Birch's TOP play ventured out and about last summer, and I'm sure the RSC would like to continue to disseminate some of their TOP Mischief productions. And of course the Young People's Shakespeare all tour nationally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 11:44:40 GMT
Also, as HG well knows, u don't have to buy the most expensive seats when u pop to these theatres and majority do Very good seats very cheaply init thou This is a weasel argument which the subsidised companies use to justify themselves. There are only a limited number of these cheaper tickets and when they're gone the only option is the rest of the theatre at significantly less affordable prices (partly set to compensate for the very low prices). Genuine question - do subs have to make money or does the money they get supposed to cover everything so they can just create art? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 12:00:40 GMT
Genuine question - do subs have to make money or does the money they get supposed to cover everything so they can just create art? National Portfolio Organisations receive funding over a number of years. They have to apply to be considered for it and satisfy a wide range of criteria from robust business planning to environmental impact to diversity to audience reach and outreach, as well as carrying out the activities which they have been part-funded to provide. Larger organisations need to maintain cash reserves so that they are in a position to be able to weather foreseeable risks. Some NPOs don't actually create anything but solely do research and development, but most lie somwhere on the spectrum between these two extremes. For example, much of the activity of the NT Studio or New Work Department doesn't feed into any NT shows. Funded organisations must be financially, artistically and operationally sustainable. The requirements are less rigorous for project grants. The recipients have to do the activity they promised in their application and to spend the money they were granted on the project. All my above comments may be wrong, in which case please correct me! |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 14, 2017 12:41:53 GMT
Production values mean a lot to lay theatre goers who aren't necessarily able to discern good acting or artistic choices. At The Red Barn the first thing people mentioned was how beautiful the staging was. It's an important part of people's impression of value for money. You can really see where the price of the ticket has gone. Otherwise you might as well watch a film. Treasure Island the other year springs to mind - it really was only worth seeing for the production design. Of course, when they manage to marry great production design with great acting and story/artistic choices, you get something very special. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 13:06:00 GMT
I think
"extravagant"
is a very relative term
Please take time to watch any of the Chanel pret a porter shows
Via their official you tube channel
They really put most productions to shame
Please do have a look as you will be amazed by the staging
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 15:45:31 GMT
Genuine question - do subs have to make money or does the money they get supposed to cover everything so they can just create art? National Portfolio Organisations receive funding over a number of years. They have to apply to be considered for it and satisfy a wide range of criteria from robust business planning to environmental impact to diversity to audience reach and outreach, as well as carrying out the activities which they have been part-funded to provide. Larger organisations need to maintain cash reserves so that they are in a position to be able to weather foreseeable risks. Some NPOs don't actually create anything but solely do research and development, but most lie somwhere on the spectrum between these two extremes. For example, much of the activity of the NT Studio or New Work Department doesn't feed into any NT shows. Funded organisations must be financially, artistically and operationally sustainable. The requirements are less rigorous for project grants. The recipients have to do the activity they promised in their application and to spend the money they were granted on the project. All my above comments may be wrong, in which case please correct me! Oh well that's good then. I have no problems them charging the moon for the seats silly people will pay as long as they have cheap seats for me!!! And by cheap I mean slutty. And by slutty I mean the slips |
|
