|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 12:05:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 13:52:00 GMT
Can anyone recall what the response was to an anti-Stratfordian being employed in the role? To be honest, that is the one thing that would make me question their suitability. I know it's always down to what they do but it just seems sacrilegious to have the head of a Shakespeare theatre not believing in Shakespeare's authorship.
|
|
5,072 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 24, 2017 14:32:58 GMT
I have no issue with an applicant for a job for a Artistic Director not being a proven director or OXbridge educated, however the Globe is different as it is one of the niche jobs and one of the most important jobs in theatre, so wouldn't expect this one to be an entry level job and would expect a successful applicant to cut their teeth elsewhere first.
Think the proof is going to be in the tasting here and it can easil turn sout like it did for Emma.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 14:41:13 GMT
Good for her- I'm not that familiar with her work but have heard consistently good things. As others have said being a director wasn't a requirement, and I imagine the process has been particularly stringent after the last time. I wish her every luck and hope she manages to tread the line between keeping things fresh and innovative and keeping the board/supporters happy enough that they support her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 14:43:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 14:56:16 GMT
Also, a smart move to revert to someone who knows the building/people- there's a lot to be said for getting what you want by knowing your way around (and around people). Anyway she's got a great background, and is an exciting appointment in a situation that could have gone a very safe and predictable route after Rice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 15:05:16 GMT
Can anyone recall what the response was to an anti-Stratfordian being employed in the role? To be honest, that is the one thing that would make me question their suitability. I know it's always down to what they do but it just seems sacrilegious to have the head of a Shakespeare theatre not believing in Shakespeare's authorship. The authorship stuff is actually on the less nutty side of Mark Rylance's belief spectrum so I guess it was less noticeable than it would have been in anyone else! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 15:16:12 GMT
I suspect that back in the day, any public concern about the Globe would have been based more on it being a theme park sort of experience than a legitimate theatre. Also, how well known was Mark Rylance back then? I wasn't into theatre in a big way in the '90s, but I'd be surprised if his views were publicly known enough to have more of an impact than any overall suspicion of the Globe project in its entirety. Indeed, he's now an Oscar winner and his views as an anti-Stratfordian are widely known, but people still cast him in Shakespeare plays and transfer them to the West End and Broadway and give him Tony nominations and awards for them. As controversial beliefs go, it's a pretty benign one (compared with, say, the anti-vax brigade, though it's still classist and elitist), and it never seems to have affected his ability to give a good performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 15:22:58 GMT
One of my favourite facts from the very interesting book on the Shakespearean authorship debate, "Contested Will", is that Malcolm X was an anti-Stratfordian.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 15:23:58 GMT
I'd be surprised if his views were publicly known enough to have more of an impact than any overall suspicion of the Globe project in its entirety. He had founded and run a touring classical theatre company called Phoebus Cart which staged plays in significant leyline locations including Bankside and the prehistoric Rollright Stones circle, where I saw The Tempest. So his views were publicly manifest. And he had played many leaading roles at the RSC and NT so he was known theatrically in those limited circles too. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 15:27:25 GMT
Hence "publicly known enough". I don't doubt for a second that the mid-'90s equivalent of us lot knew his oeuvre and opinions intimately, but theatre audiences have always been made up of FAR more than just the hyper-devotees. Your use of the word "limited" suggests you perfectly understand my point, but that's okay, I understand that sometimes you just enjoy disagreeing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 15:28:54 GMT
I don't think I've ever encountered Michelle Terry, although it's quite possible that we unknowingly passed during her time as an undergraduate at Cardiff University which was in the depths of our theatrical Dark Age which lasted from the demise of Moving Being and Brith Gof in the early 90s until the creation of National Theatre Wales and The Other Room nearly two decades later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 15:42:11 GMT
Hence "publicly known enough". I don't doubt for a second that the mid-'90s equivalent of us lot knew his oeuvre and opinions intimately, but theatre audiences have always been made up of FAR more than just the hyper-devotees. Your use of the word "limited" suggests you perfectly understand my point, but that's okay, I understand that sometimes you just enjoy disagreeing. There was a small public exhibition on display at Shakespeare's Globe last year of a few documents from the project to build Shakespeare's Globe. They included press features of Phoebus Cart performing at or near the Bankside site, with Mark Rylance's explanation of how the site is at a meeting point of several leylines running through London. So, people who might later have been interested in the artistic directorship of the Globe when it was later opened would already have been aware of these views. And because they had been clearly expressed and reported, as part of the ongoing development of the Globe project, they were picked up and repeated in initial media commentary on the appointment of Mark Rylance. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 24, 2017 15:44:02 GMT
It is good to see that the commitment to touring is still part of the candidate specification. I think it is a massive shame that there is no tour this year - reaching out to audiences in the provinces is an important part of what the Globe has done over the past decade or so. In the early days it was very much in the spirit of the early troupes of travelling players - packing everything into the back of a van and using that as part of the set. More recently it has been a bigger, more elaborate affair (at least here in Oxford)
But taking the Globe style of Shakespeare round the country every summer is something that should return. Let's hope it does.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 24, 2017 15:52:25 GMT
Wasn't it pretty much the case that Sam Wanamaker made it very clear that Rylance was his first choice to be his successor? There was clearly a strong relationship between the two.
And the reason why Rylance's appointment wasn't subject to quite so much 'analysis' is probably because it took place before every armchair critic had easy access to internet forums where they could pick apart every part of his career to date!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 17:37:40 GMT
I don't think I've ever encountered Michelle Terry, although it's quite possible that we unknowingly passed during her time as an undergraduate at Cardiff University which was in the depths of our theatrical Dark Age which lasted from the demise of Moving Being and Brith Gof in the early 90s until the creation of National Theatre Wales and The Other Room nearly two decades later. She was outstanding in the Katie Mitchell revival of Cleansed, I also loved her in the divisive In the Republic of Happiness at the Court. Only seen her in one live Shakespeare (as opposed to DVD), All's Well at the National in a decent Marianne Elliott production, and she was effective in that. It's to be hoped that she can get directors of the calibre of Mitchell and Elliott at the Globe. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 24, 2017 17:46:41 GMT
She's one of the best doing Shakespeare on stage for me and her appointment seems to have gone down well in the theatre world if reactions are anything to go by, think the Globe could have pulled a real rabbit out of the hat with this one, interesting times.
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Jul 24, 2017 18:21:20 GMT
She's not a director and a middle range actress, best in comedies from what ive seen
Her first season will be interesting, she has time of course as the Globe is programmed to next spring. Lets see if she can improve on the calibre of directors prepared to work there. Wonder who else applied?
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 24, 2017 18:24:32 GMT
My hazy recollection from the 90s is that people in general were more interested in the Globe as a building than who was going to be its artistic director, and it was seen very much as a tourist attraction/educational experience first. But then I wasn't a proper theatre geek back then. Rylance' views were known but not considered overly important. I saw him in Anthony and Cleopatra there when I was studying it for A level English and I think it was briefly mentioned when we were talking about it. It was just an amusing quirk, though.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 24, 2017 19:10:24 GMT
My hazy recollection from the 90s is that people in general were more interested in the Globe as a building than who was going to be its artistic director, and it was seen very much as a tourist attraction/educational experience first. But then I wasn't a proper theatre geek back then. Rylance' views were known but not considered overly important. I saw him in Anthony and Cleopatra there when I was studying it for A level English and I think it was briefly mentioned when we were talking about it. It was just an amusing quirk, though. You are right, Kathryn. It was all about getting the building built and the fund raising was exceptional, set a marker for other arts organisations. We knew about the ley lines..ahem.. but I for one didn't know Rylance thought that ' someone else ' wrote the plays. The place was a novelty at first but Rylance was the right guy for the job because he turned the novelty into great productions. He served the plays and it didn't matter who wrote them. A lot of the magic was the ' natural' lighting as the light fell in the evening. I wish Michelle all the luck in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 12:28:20 GMT
From what I've read yesterday, she has a sound academic background in English Literature, and I feel that this will stand her in good stead at Shakespeare's Globe where the Performance and the Academic Research arms of the organisation (and also Education) are all crucial to the whole operation of the Trust. She will fully understand where they are coming from and mutual respect and harmony should freely flow!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 12:38:16 GMT
There is an established Executive Director who leads on those fronts. And she has six months there as Artistic Director Designate which gives opportunity to fill in any gaps and proceed up the learning curve, where necessary and desirable, ready to start, fully prepared, as Artistic Director.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 13:03:05 GMT
Don't forget that she holds the cards here, The Globe cannot afford to block another AD's vision, once is a big mistake, twice would be evidence of inherent dysfunction. One of the Guardian trolls was extolling her as the 'conservative choice' yesterday, I don't think they will be as happy some years down the line.
Their problem with directors is still a festering issue, though. By employing an actor who it seems won't be directing, then that further reduces the expertise on hand in that area. Will there be a head of production answering to Terry? In which case the issue has just been shunted a little down the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 13:40:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 14:11:40 GMT
Well, it answers the question in that the reference to budgets in the first point is one of the key differences between the new and old job descriptions
Old:
New:
Which is fair enough I think: "Here's your budget for the theatre, here's the rest of the budget which is for education, touring programmes, etc etc."
Also note this one:
Old:
New:
As I say, anything you want to know about any changes in the role and interaction with Globe management can be found by reading the job descriptions.
|
|
