|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 9:37:30 GMT
Tovey does appear to be settling in New York rather (apart from the cockroaches) so it's not beyond the bounds of probability that a New York transfer will be in the offing.
I don't see why it has to be binary, though. Why does it have to be "Nathan Lane is the man Marianne Elliott wanted for the job" OR "the producers wanted Nathan Lane because he is famous"? Why can't it be a compromise? Much as we would all agree that the best person for the job should be the person who gets the job, we should bear in mind that skill is not the only criterion for deciding who will be the best person for the job. They should also be suitably reliable, they should understand what the director is hoping to achieve and be willing to go for it, they should have an idea of what they want to bring to the table and have that be reasonably compatible with the director's initial thoughts, they should be available (and allowed, in the case of international performers) to work during the period in question, they should be willing to work for the wage that is offered, they should be willing to be a part of the ensemble and not go off and do their own thing, and ideally they'd be able to get on well with the rest of the company and not be a heinous tool. I get that compromises are made in casting and you're not necessarily going to get someone who fits all of that, but if you can get someone who pleases the director and the producers and works well with the rest of the company, then you've not only made a compromise, you have ultimately cast the best person for the job in all respects.
Imagine casting someone who's an absolutely brilliant actor, but who bankrupts the producers while making enemies of every single cast, crew, and creative in the building. Definitely NOT the best person for the job!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 9:44:57 GMT
What Baemax said- in this and all casting really. I think the NT is concious enough of it's history/reputation to rarely gamble on just star names, but to actually consider all the elements (are they a good actor, the right actor, are they reliable/generally not too much of a dick) as all these things make for a good production. And it's as Baemax rightly says, about getting the right fit for what the director wants to achieve. Given that Elliot took her time casting what is at it's centre an ensemble piece, I'm fairly confident in saying it wasn't cast around any names but the fact that they could get those name(s) is a happy addition. Re: Angels itself, I would be very surprised if Kushner isn't involved in some capacity, as he likes to be involved with all major productions, and generally is involved if there are any radical changes involved-he was involved in the Headlong production in 2007 as there were script tweaks, and in the Signature and Chicago productions more reccently. And yes Jan Brock I did know that story...I wrote my PhD on this play, I know many stories about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 31, 2016 9:55:17 GMT
What Baemax said- in this and all casting really. I think the NT is concious enough of it's history/reputation to rarely gamble on just star names, but to actually consider all the elements (are they a good actor, the right actor, are they reliable/generally not too much of a dick) as all these things make for a good production. And it's as Baemax rightly says, about getting the right fit for what the director wants to achieve. Given that Elliot took her time casting what is at it's centre an ensemble piece, I'm fairly confident in saying it wasn't cast around any names but the fact that they could get those name(s) is a happy addition. Re: Angels itself, I would be very surprised if Kushner isn't involved in some capacity, as he likes to be involved with all major productions, and generally is involved if there are any radical changes involved-he was involved in the Headlong production in 2007 as there were script tweaks, and in the Signature and Chicago productions more reccently. And yes Jan Brock I did know that story...I wrote my PhD on this play, I know many stories about it. That story is from the NT book I referenced first in this thread. Kushner is obviously a nightmare to work with. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 9:56:23 GMT
She should be the CURRENT director alongside Tom Morris but I believe they declined to apply, and I imagine they would decline again next time. One reason given by Marianne Elliot last time was that her daughter was only eight. This reason won't apply next time. I'm so glad that Tom Morris stayed on at Bristol Old Vic to see through all the stages of Transformation there. The final development has recently been started and will be completed in a couple of years, so again he would be free to move on next time. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 31, 2016 10:13:53 GMT
She should be the CURRENT director alongside Tom Morris but I believe they declined to apply, and I imagine they would decline again next time. One reason given by Marianne Elliot last time was that her daughter was only eight. This reason won't apply next time. I'm so glad that Tom Morris stayed on at Bristol Old Vic to see through all the stages of Transformation there. The final development has recently been started and will be completed in a couple of years, so again he would be free to move on next time. Even if Norris doesn't extend his contract those two would be mid-50s when the next director is appointed, I would hope there would be some candidates amongst the younger generation. Like Mendes they may find passing on their best chance of getting the job means they never get it. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 31, 2016 12:59:01 GMT
Somehow I don't think Mendes is too upset about missing out on the NT job, given what else he has been doing! Edit: I'm not sure why the quoted text keeps disappearing....but I think it's probably obvious enough what I'm responding to! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 14:06:31 GMT
I didn't think Sam Mendes was interested in it now, and he'd be unsuitable anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 31, 2016 16:27:36 GMT
I didn't think Sam Mendes was interested in it now, and he'd be unsuitable anyway. He or Daldry could have had the job instead of Hytner but both declined after stringing the NT along for a while. Mirren had played Cleo twice before the NT version. She briefly appeared nude in it. From that I assume Terry Johnson wasn't among the 21 directors asked, he'd have jumped at it. The NT book is mute on why so many directors turned it down but I think she has a reputation of being a bit difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 21:19:07 GMT
He or Daldry could have had the job instead of Hytner but both declined after stringing the NT along for a while. Is that taken from the book you're relaying to us? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 16:31:07 GMT
Update.... "Rufus Norris' first year as director of the National Theatre has seen ticket sales at the South Bank venue hit a seven-year high, with the organisation playing to an average capacity of 88%. The NT's annual review for 2015/16 charts the first full year of Norris' tenure running the theatre, alongside Lisa Burger as executive director. It revealed that the average capacity of the NT's four South Bank spaces was 88%, 2% lower than the previous year. Despite this, the NT sold 787,000 tickets, the highest in seven years. The theatre created 27 new productions for its London home, two more than in 2014/15. The 2015/16 annual review also states that the number of bookers under the age of 35 has increased by 75%, and that the average age of all bookers had dropped to 51, closer to the national average of 47 and down from 55 last year. The NT's total income for the year was £118.5 million, slightly up on the previous year’s figure of £117.7 million. Box office accounted for 60% of income across the NT, the West End and touring, both in the UK and internationally. Earlier this year the NT committed to ensuring gender equality in the directors and living writers it employs by 2021. In 2015/16, 47% of new work at the NT was by female writers, with 43% of its directors being female. The equality measures were announced in February as part of a drive to increase diversity across the NT's South Bank home, with the aim of ensuring that 20% of work is written or adapted by people of colour by 2021, and 20% of directors are people of colour by the same date. The review revealed that in 2015/16, these figures were 12% and 10% respectively. Its target for 25% of performers to be people of colour was exceeded, at 31%." www.thestage.co.uk/news/2016/national-theatre-ticket-sales-hit-seven-year-high-under-rufus-norris/ |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 17:02:53 GMT
Good job they didnt sack him after his first season |
|
2,760 posts
|
Post by n1david on Oct 25, 2016 21:26:28 GMT
It revealed that the average capacity of the NT's four South Bank spaces was 88%, 2% lower than the previous year. Despite this, the NT sold 787,000 tickets, the highest in seven years. The interesting number would be the other figure which the NT Story book quotes, which is proportion of maximum revenue. There were an awful lot of heavily discounted tickets for Wonder.land... Good news on the diversity figures though, and there will inevitably be some friction as previous NT regulars go to fewer shows and they try to attract a new audience which will take time to build. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2016 20:59:28 GMT
I just don't get how this is possible when it's been papering so much. Am I failing to understand something basic? It wouldn't be the first time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 0:14:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 7:34:21 GMT
Even so - I feel like I've sat in a lot of half empty theatres at the NT over the last 18 months. I guess it's a good lesson in your own small perspective not necessarily being the overall true picture. |
|
