Kiln (formerly Tricycle) 2018

I’ll spread the word.

2 years

To do this???

It’s fine

But has obviously been done on the cheap

It’s such a shame

Signage awful

The layout same as before

Unclear why it took them this long

The only such refurbishment in the UK which has met my standards

Is the ROH

Holy f*ck! Im actually agreeing with Mr Misery. It has never been explained why it took TWO years to refurb a small theatre. The new season had better be flipping good.

And others....

"...a letter to The Stage signed by artists including playwrights Richard Bean, Rebecca Lenkiewicz, April de Angelis and Tanika Gupta, states that they stand behind the venue’s “proposition that theatre is not here to fossilise culture, but to invigorate it”.

The letter, also signed by director Cooke, Royal Shakespeare Company deputy artistic director Whyman, and Orange Tree Theatre artistic director Paul Miller, states: “We write to congratulate Indhu Rubasingham and everyone at Kiln Theatre – producers, creative learning team, administrators, box office, everyone – on the great achievement of transforming and reopening the building this week.”

It adds: “We fully acknowledge the rich and special history of the Tricycle… But we stand with Kiln and its proposition that theatre is not here to fossilise culture but to invigorate it. While honouring the past, it must also reach out to new audiences and artists, who will come to Kiln with fresh perspectives, ideas, energy. Theatre’s mutability is its strength.”

The letter is also signed by playwrights Simon Stephens, Roy Williams and Tanika Gupta, and designer Tom Piper."

www.thestage.co.uk/news/2018/playwrights-and-arts-leaders-including-dominic-cooke-rally-behind-indhu-rubasingham-in-support-of-kiln-theatre/

Retaining a well-respected identity does not 'fossilise' anything. It honours and celebrates that history and takes it onwards into a new era.

This is just the theatre establishment closing ranks around something that doesn't make a lot of sense.

It is creating the need for more effort and more work to build a new brand rather than using the existing one as a springboard to the future. It does feel like change for the sake of it.

New building - great. New name - pointless and possibly damaging.

I wonder what people would think/say if VF decided to change the Royal Court’s name.

Rubasingham’s mates have come out to support her, but the Theatre folk should also hear out those in that community who oppose the name change. The old artistic directorship always tried to serve that community. What is the value of theatres like the Trike (oops!) if they don’t listen to their communities?. Did they have a say? Did they help to choose the name?

There was a protest about Jerwood led by leading playwrights because artists didn’t want the Theatre to be compromised by the hint of private sponsorship but the days when that was a consideration are long gone.

I can understand why changing a theatre name that celebrates a real person might be disliked. The Cottesloe or Albery didn't cause a fuss but the Gielgud, for example, would expect to be there for some time yet.

As soon as you use a name it creates specificity though and Baldwin is as specific culturally as any other and doesn't reflect the greater variety of cultural backgrounds that the theatre has promoted.

Rupert Goold weighed-in to support the theatre saying he got lots of complaints when he re-named "The Oxford Stage Company" as "Headlong" - in that case the reason for the name change seems entirely obvious and justified.

Given that the theatre is known for its work with people of Afro-Caribbean and Asian heritage, it looks really, really embarrassing.