Losing the National Theatre habit

I'm writing this as someone with no insider knowledge of how theatres are run, but I'm just wondering how things can be derailed by one person - the artistic director? I can see how the artistic vision might just not be right, but ultimately there are trustees who are employing the AD and he is answerable to them if his vision is out of kilter with the organisation's objectives, what they expected of the appointment, or their responses to public/industry criticism. So are the trustees failing to take enough responsibility?

Apart from the trustees, aren't there dozens of people whose opinions should be heard by the AD, whether formally or just because it's part of their job to keep their ears to the ground? I mean senior employees, major figures in other parts of the industry, neighbouring organisations (Hayward, RFH, etc), the Arts Council, Stratford Council and business representatives, etc. Maybe even audiences?

On the most basic level there must be many actors and directors going to the NT and the Garden Theatre and gossiping about what's wrong e.g. wondering when the RSC theatres will reopen, and gossip and unrest must surely filter back to those in charge, unless everyone working in theatre thinks all's hunky dory with the RSC and NT?

I'm probably not understanding what an AD's role is, but if they're the artistic directors, aren't there other employees responsible for non-artistic/business stuff, e.g. who would be saying to GD, we've got to get these theatres open asap because we're killing the town's economy and our own reputation? And if not, why not? Why would we expect someone whose expertise is in putting on plays, to be able to do things like managing finances, buildings and employees, economic responsibilities? Or maybe it's the finance directors who are overriding artistic decisions and saying they can't afford to reopen yet (unless it's underwritten by the Gorvy family)?

It seems like the response to the pandemic has highlighted (existing?) issues around how big arts organisations are managed. There's the artistic vision - and there are legitimate criticisms of the way both RN and GD have been doing their jobs as creatives and seemingly not been held to account. And there's also the balance between creativity and business/financial management, as well as wider responsibility to audiences and local communities, which seems to be the issue which is killing Stratford and keeping the NT from fully reopening as a public space.

My extremely limited knowledge of the situation at the NT is that Rufus is a consensus builder and listens to everybody. And that's not a bad thing in general, but when running a multi-theatre institution there needs to be someone at the top with a clear vision to make tough artistic and business decisions and that as talented and as personable as he may be, he's in over his head. Let's remember he was an NT Associate before he was given the job, so the thinking may have been: He knows the building, he knows how its run, there won't be a learning curve. Similarly Greg Doran got the job for which he had been campaigning for many many years. Both organizations are facing unprecedented social and artistic challenges in these unsettled times. There are no easy answers. My question is are these organizations asking the hard questions or simply sleepwalking in the hopes that it will all be over soon?

On balance, looking back since Norris joined there have been some highs: The Deep Blue Sea, The Red Barn, Follies, Network, Home I’m Darling, Small Island, Anna, Hansard, Death of England
and some lows: I’m Not Running, The Threepenny Opera
but I think Hytner probably had a higher ‘win’ rate.

Hoping their programme for 2022 will be more uplifting!

My assumption is there is a lack of diversity of opinion around Norris and his senior staff and the board who appointed him. Same with Doran. There’s probably no one there to really challenge them - not like all the shouting matches Peter Hall had with the full-time team of associates he built.

At the least they can do it on the stage and stream it online.

Very lazy from the NT IMO    

Another similarity of Norris and Doran is that they are both open to the charge of nepotism. Norris to a lesser extent over this Hex production. But if you were AD of the RSC how could you ever come up with Death of a Salesman as a play you would programme as one of the few major non-Shakespeares you do, and having programmed it then come up with Antony Sher as the obvious leading actor for it.

The issue with Death of a Salesman wasn't that it was a poor production, but that it was a vanity project for Doran and Sher that used public money rather than being a commercial project. Plus it diverted the RSC from Doran's then strategy of doing Main House productions of the full set of plays in 5 years. We now know that he wasn't actually that bothered about sticking to his own strategy and has now completely dropped it.

Yes I’m not disputing that. I’m suggesting (I don’t know) that the decision making process was the reverse of what it should have been with Doran first asking Sher if there was any part he wanted to play.

The point has been mentioned here before, but I think it is striking that the effort theatres have put in to try to recover from the pandemic has been in inverse proportion to the amount of financial help they got. So some of the commercial sector and theatres who got nothing are up an running at full capacity, fringe venues who got a small amount of help are back now, medium sized venues like the Almeida and Donmar were more delayed but have full programmes planned, and the RSC and NT are still limping along at much reduced capacity with several of their theatres closed. Why ? In the RSC's case I think it's simply because they can, for a number of years actually staging productions has seemed to be a low priority activity for them. 

ACE are a huge part of the problem.

Too many ACE decision makers come from the subsidised arts sector and like to support their friends in the industry.

It is nepotism writ large far too often.

If we could strip the arts of nepotism, it would be a better place for everyone.

A world where talent is at the heart of casting. Where shows are funded because their quality and not to meet a tick box agenda that has nothing to do with creating memorable theatre.

If you want to do shows with your mates/family members, do it without public money.

ACE are actively harming the long term viability of our theatre sector by being driven by dogma and nepotism rather that looking after talented creators and performers and audiences who crave great shows.

Just read Simon's post about ACE after posting my last comment. Very interesting to read, but how does that change? The Arts Council is presumably controlled by the government, currently not very interested in stamping out cronyism, which is depressing. But I agree - nepotism and cronyism should have no place in the arts (or anywhere really).

In theory yes. But if we take the Death of a Salesman project, that didn't need public subsidy. That cast would have attracted enough investment to work in the commercial sector. It took public money away from other work that the RSC should have been doing. It was never going to be a long term money spinner for the company. It was a vanity project that should never have been allowed to happen.

I would urge people to look at funding decisions made by ACE. There is a huge amount on indulgence going on. That has to stop.

ACE can't or won't change. If needs to go.