|
Post by Honoured Guest 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 Honoured Guest 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 Honoured Guest 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
|
|
349 posts
|
Post by cirque on Apr 28, 2017 12:27:21 GMT
For Gods sake. Go now. Stop this massacre of Globe
|
|
349 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
|
|
1,865 posts
|
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 Honoured Guest 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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 14:52:38 GMT
I always think it's pointless to get aggravated when a Shakespeare production isn't to your taste - it's not like he's a rarely performed writer and this is anyone's first and last opportunity to see R&J. There are many ways to approach his work other than declaiming it in ruffs and tights. It's the reinterpretation and new approaches that have kept these works alive, not preserving them in aspic. If there had been no freshness he would have died out years ago. But the ruffs and tights productions are out there if that's what you like.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you don't like this, don't sweat it - it's one approach but all the others (including the traditional) aren't going away. If other people like this sort of thing, why do you get to tell them they can't have it - why does your subjective taste trump theirs?
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 28, 2017 14:57:55 GMT
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. Nothing elitist about it at all.
There are plenty of youngsters out there who are capable of being exposed to adult Shakespeare and developing a love of his works, harbour a love of them in their hearts and minds and become custodians of our heritage.
However, this is aimed at yoofs who struggle to concentrate beyond a 140 character message and think Skepta is a genius...
Big difference.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 14:59:16 GMT
Are you Parsley having a laugh with us...?
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 28, 2017 15:00:32 GMT
Are you Parsley having a laugh with us...? No and my views are shared by a number of prominent critics too.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 15:18:31 GMT
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. Nothing elitist about it at all.
There are plenty of youngsters out there who are capable of being exposed to adult Shakespeare and developing a love of his works, harbour a love of them in their hearts and minds and become custodians of our heritage.
However, this is aimed at yoofs who struggle to concentrate beyond a 140 character message and think Skepta is a genius...
Big difference.
On the fading hope that this isn't satire, you've said that anyone who might prefer a less traditional approach to Shakespeare than the line you've arbitrarily decided is the correct one is simply too stupid to get it. And simplified them into the kind of charicature you get in bad 90s sketch shows. I'm sure that when the first woman came on stage to act in a Shakespeare there was a chorus of critics crying out about the damage to our heritage, and arguing that the plays were being dumbed down for people too stupid to engage with them the way it was passed down them too. I'm no expert by any means, but I doubt that even the most 'traditional' theatres are that close an experience to how things were 400 years ago, and the line that each of us draws between 'too traditional' and 'not traditional enough' is blurry, wide and completely subjective. I'm not sure that this version of Romeo & Juliet is my cup of tea either but it's silly to act as though our opinions on art are somehow indisputible facts; anyone who prefers stuff we deem too trashy is dumb, and anyone who finds our likes trashy is simply pretentious.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Apr 28, 2017 15:21:48 GMT
Are you Parsley having a laugh with us...? No and my views are shared by a number of prominent critics too. And I think that might say it all, really!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:23:39 GMT
No and my views are shared by a number of prominent critics too. And I think that might say it all, really! Are there really any serious critics who think there's only one way to do Shakespeare though? I seriously doubt it!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:28:20 GMT
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. I would truly love for someone to explain to me why re-interpretation of a text is always hailed as 'dumbing down' when it comes to Shakespeare. I can't help but think that the man who borrowed from 100s of sources directly and clearly took on the trends and influences of his own time wouldn't, if presented with a Tardis say 'Aye well done I'd never have thought of doing it this way' and sat back and enjoyed the performance. And also if we are playing by the rules of 'as it was handed down to us' why has a woman ever been allowed to set foot on stage at The Globe then for a start?
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 28, 2017 15:33:35 GMT
I would truly love for someone to explain to me why re-interpretation of a text is always hailed as 'dumbing down' when it comes to Shakespeare. I can't help but think that the man who borrowed from 100s of sources directly and clearly took on the trends and influences of his own time wouldn't, if presented with a Tardis say 'Aye well done I'd never have thought of doing it this way' and sat back and enjoyed the performance. And also if we are playing by the rules of 'as it was handed down to us' why has a woman ever been allowed to set foot on stage at The Globe then for a start? I would argue that the introduction of women to the stage benefitted society but littering Romeo and Juliet with, according to the reviews, cock jokes probably isn't.
Of course we should be trying to turn youngsters on to Shakespeare and of course it won't always be as the previous generation(s) would like it but surely we have the responsibility to say when changes and approaches have gone too far?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:34:59 GMT
This debate reminds of when I saw a brilliant Japanese version of Midsummer Night's Dream and in the Q&A afterwards one person ventured the opinion that it was an abomination because Shakespeare was ENGLISH dontcher know. He was thoroughly booed by the rest of the audience!
|
|