5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 27, 2017 8:57:47 GMT
After me
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 9:10:46 GMT
In some way I can understand why the Globe should think itself diffrent-and I agree with them.The Globe has always had an academic element which most theatres do not and this is in addition to it's education work.How much that Academic element feeds what goes on stage is an intresting question-I got the impression that Rylance was the most influenced and dromgoole less so:others may have a diffent impression. I found the press coverage fasinating-it seemed to split down fairly political lines with the left wing supporting Rice and the more Right wing supporting the Board.I am curious if future coverage will split down the same lines:intresting times lie ahead. It's not about left or right, it's about right and wrong.
In London we are blessed to have an incredible amount of theatres offering a whole array and eclectic mixture of productions. However, we have a historical culture and heritage which deserves to be preserved. maintained and showcased and this is what The National and The Globe should be for.
There are too many "progressives" out there willing to promote their opinions about social inclusion, diversification and the democratisation of theatre - sentiments I agree with - but are equally scathing in their attacks on the "dominant" culture which is equally deserving of protection.
Theatre is not about preservation, it is about building on the past. Museums are where you preserve, maintain and showcase the past.
Would we expect, say, the car industry to churn out old models because we did them really well? Of course we wouldn't and the same goes for theatre. A theatre is a living, growing organism, not a museum.
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 27, 2017 9:27:25 GMT
It's not about left or right, it's about right and wrong.
In London we are blessed to have an incredible amount of theatres offering a whole array and eclectic mixture of productions. However, we have a historical culture and heritage which deserves to be preserved. maintained and showcased and this is what The National and The Globe should be for.
There are too many "progressives" out there willing to promote their opinions about social inclusion, diversification and the democratisation of theatre - sentiments I agree with - but are equally scathing in their attacks on the "dominant" culture which is equally deserving of protection.
Theatre is not about preservation, it is about building on the past. Museums are where you preserve, maintain and showcase the past.
Would we expect, say, the car industry to churn out old models because we did them really well? Of course we wouldn't and the same goes for theatre. A theatre is a living, growing organism, not a museum.
There is room for both preservation and innovation and there must be a balance between the two.
However, I still argue that The National, The Globe and The RSC should be bastions of preserving heritage and culture. There are plenty of other theatres to ensue organic innovation.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 27, 2017 10:21:12 GMT
This thread seems to have become entirely about (a) Emma Rice's treatment by the Globe, and (b) how progressive the theatre should be.
Definitely interesting (and important) topics, but it's a discussion that can't really reach a conclusion since we'll never have all of the facts about Rice, and the merits or otherwise of innovation at the Globe are entirely subjective.
Does it not make sense for us to concentrate on the play here, and for wider discussion of the direction that the Globe should take be moved to a more general thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 10:28:29 GMT
Theatre is not about preservation, it is about building on the past. Museums are where you preserve, maintain and showcase the past.
Would we expect, say, the car industry to churn out old models because we did them really well? Of course we wouldn't and the same goes for theatre. A theatre is a living, growing organism, not a museum.
There is room for both preservation and innovation and there must be a balance between the two.
However, I still argue that The National, The Globe and The RSC should be bastions of preserving heritage and culture. There are plenty of other theatres to ensue organic innovation.
I believe the opposite, that the National & RSC, being government funded institutions, should be at the vanguard of new and exciting directions for theatre and production, mirroring a forward looking and innovative nation. The Globe is somewhat different given its lack of public funding but it can also be prompted by audiences and the surrounding debate.
If people want to see something preserved, lobby government or private individuals to create a working theatre museum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 11:25:24 GMT
It's the boards fault for hiring her and then firing her in such a manner. Rice did the job she said she was going to do. Agree that the Board is to blame, probably egged on by destructively whingeing academics embedded in the Globe's complex strucure and in panicked reaction to threats of funding withdrawals from the most bonkers fundamentalist donors. But their fault probably originated with the original selection and briefing of the members of the Appointment Committee which picked Emma Rice and recommended her to the Board at the end of their selection process. The fine Appointment was made purely from a Theatre point of view but was later overturned by a cabal of Nutty Academics and Fundamentalist Donors. Who will now ruin the Theatre side of the Globe after Emma Rice's programe ends in a year's time. Unless the Globe's Executive Director can somehow manage to rein in the warring factions. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 11:28:30 GMT
If people want to see something preserved, then buy some Authenticke Shakespearean Jamme in the Globe's Gifte Shoppe. |
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 27, 2017 13:20:51 GMT
It's the boards fault for hiring her and then firing her in such a manner. Rice did the job she said she was going to do. Agree that the Board is to blame, probably egged on by destructively whingeing academics embedded in the Globe's complex strucure and in panicked reaction to threats of funding withdrawals from the most bonkers fundamentalist donors. But their fault probably originated with the original selection and briefing of the members of the Appointment Committee which picked Emma Rice and recommended her to the Board at the end of their selection process. The fine Appointment was made purely from a Theatre point of view but was later overturned by a cabal of Nutty Academics and Fundamentalist Donors. Who will now ruin the Theatre side of the Globe after Emma Rice's programe ends in a year's time. Unless the Globe's Executive Director can somehow manage to rein in the warring factions. Sorry, but those "whingeing academics" and "bonkers fundamentalist donors" have a right to harbour their own opinions about what Shakespeare is or isn't. The Globe has been successful to date and, despite your suggestion that it will now face ruin, will continue to be successful post-Rice.
The board, as I said above, are to blame for the appointment but they are equally allowed to admit when they have got it wrong or believe to have got it wrong.
|
|
376 posts
|
Post by sherriebythesea on Apr 27, 2017 14:06:23 GMT
Are most of the audience locals or tourists (I'm in the latter group)?
And what about the show the OP saw? Any other opinions on the show itself?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 15:02:22 GMT
Are most of the audience locals or tourists (I'm in the latter group)? A good mix of both, with the tourists being UK and international, English-speaking and not. And also a good mix of regular attenders and first-timers, and regular theatregoers and first-timers. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 28, 2017 11:52:11 GMT
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 28, 2017 11:52:51 GMT
sorry typo, should have said 'I can't say', really should read my posts before posting
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 28, 2017 11:58:44 GMT
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Apr 28, 2017 12:27:21 GMT
For Gods sake. Go now. Stop this massacre of Globe
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Apr 28, 2017 12:29:32 GMT
In case any one doubts ....I don't think the Globe can survive a year like this with a winter season to follow.Emma Rice should do the honourable thing and exit now.....it's the wrecking ball.
I have tried to see all perspectives but this destruction is heartbreaking.Rylance do a year of rebuild with new AD to sort...olease
|
|
2,058 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Marwood on Apr 28, 2017 13:08:44 GMT
Didn't enjoy Macbeth at the Globe last year, but was thinking of maybe giving the place another chance and was contemplating going for one of the £5 tickets to see this, but after hearing of dinosaurs singing YMCA, and an emo Romeo munching Doritos, I think I'll pass.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 13:33:34 GMT
This probably isn't my cup of tea and the reviews seem fairly brutal so far, but with such a divisive approach as this I wonder how helpful some of these reviews really are.
What I mean is that this sort of OTT/raucous treatment of Shakespeare seems is always going to be polarising, so a one star review from someone who hates this kind of thing anyway might be more of a reflection of the reviewer than the show. Like reading a review of a heavy metal album from someone who only likes classical music.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 13:46:41 GMT
"A predominantly young audience seemed happy enough" (Michael Billington, The Guardian)
Nice of him to acknowledge this. If he took the trouble to analyse why, he might get what the Globe is doing.
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 28, 2017 14:06:59 GMT
For Gods sake. Go now. Stop this massacre of Globe If the remainder of the season is just as bad it could effect her post-Globe career unbelievably.
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 28, 2017 14:09:19 GMT
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 28, 2017 14:14:33 GMT
"A predominantly young audience seemed happy enough" (Michael Billington, The Guardian) Nice of him to acknowledge this. If he took the trouble to analyse why, he might get what the Globe is doing. Erm, dumbing down to attract the yoofs? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 14:35:56 GMT
"A predominantly young audience seemed happy enough" (Michael Billington, The Guardian) Nice of him to acknowledge this. If he took the trouble to analyse why, he might get what the Globe is doing. Erm, dumbing down to attract the yoofs? Or, oh I don't know, this might be a long shot but . . perhaps trying to bring in a new audience that will keep the Globe going when all of the current old farts die? |
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 28, 2017 14:39:23 GMT
Erm, dumbing down to attract the yoofs? Or, oh I don't know, this might be a long shot but . . perhaps trying to bring in a new audience that will keep the Globe going when all of the current old farts die? So, dumbing down our heritage to attract people who are too stupid to engage with it in the way it was passed down to us? |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 14:44:48 GMT
Or, oh I don't know, this might be a long shot but . . perhaps trying to bring in a new audience that will keep the Globe going when all of the current old farts die? So, dumbing down our heritage to attract people who are too stupid to engage with it in the way it was passed down to us? Yowser. I know this is all just friendly discussions, but this must win the prize for the most oversimplified and aggressively elitist comment of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 14:50:04 GMT
Or, oh I don't know, this might be a long shot but . . perhaps trying to bring in a new audience that will keep the Globe going when all of the current old farts die? So, dumbing down our heritage to attract people who are too stupid to engage with it in the way it was passed down to us? Ummmmm . . no. |
|
