348 posts
|
Post by cirque on Jul 14, 2017 11:18:44 GMT
Delighted that Globe will start live cinema with King Lear.
Now lets move with new AD.........with Emma R at Old Vic with Wise Children ,think it must be time to let Globe audiences know what lies ahead in thoughts of policy etc.
Too long in the dark.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 14, 2017 11:30:24 GMT
Delighted that Globe will start live cinema with King Lear. Now lets move with new AD.........with Emma R at Old Vic with Wise Children ,think it must be time to let Globe audiences know what lies ahead in thoughts of policy etc. Too long in the dark. They are finding that the very big hole they dug themselves into is more difficult to get out of than they thought.The first thing that should take place is a wholesale independent review of the organisation, then they should act on that. |
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jul 14, 2017 12:48:23 GMT
Are you by any chance a management consultant, Mr Pirelli?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 14, 2017 12:56:03 GMT
Are you by any chance a management consultant, Mr Pirelli? With the money they can charge, maybe a late change of career change beckons..... |
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jul 14, 2017 13:02:44 GMT
So, that's a No!
Personally, I don't think that Shakespeare's Globe would benefit from such a review because the Board would be the client and they would have no desire to hear the analysis an recommendations, so it wouldn't be productive. From press coverage of the fiasco, it seems that the Executive Director does everything they can to keep the dysfunctional ship afloat, and has no need of a review - could easily write one themself, and probably has!
|
|
23 posts
|
Post by nobunaga on Jul 15, 2017 10:09:02 GMT
According to "the stage" AEA Consulting is/has carried out such a review for the Globe management..
The only dysfunction I can see is that the Globe choose somebody who was a
bad fit-only directing one shakespeare play is perhaps not enough and she had never
directed at the Globe before.At least the Globe managment realised that Rice's vision would not
work in the long term and they moved to resolve it-hardly the action of a dysfunctional managment.
Seeing Rice at the Globe I always got the impression that she was fighting against the
Theatre and trying to impose her vision on it:which would not work in the long term.In short
Rice is a conventional conservative director and the Globe is too radical a Theatre for her-faced
directoring without the light/sound toolset she relies on she changed the theatre when a more
flexable director might have changed/evolved their vision.
I suspect in any case she will be a lot happier in her new role..
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 15, 2017 11:23:32 GMT
According to "the stage" AEA Consulting is/has carried out such a review for the Globe management.. The only dysfunction I can see is that the Globe choose somebody who was a bad fit-only directing one shakespeare play is perhaps not enough and she had never directed at the Globe before.At least the Globe managment realised that Rice's vision would not work in the long term and they moved to resolve it-hardly the action of a dysfunctional managment. Seeing Rice at the Globe I always got the impression that she was fighting against the Theatre and trying to impose her vision on it:which would not work in the long term.In short Rice is a conventional conservative director and the Globe is too radical a Theatre for her-faced directoring without the light/sound toolset she relies on she changed the theatre when a more flexable director might have changed/evolved their vision. I suspect in any case she will be a lot happier in her new role.. Your valiant attempt to reverse what is doesn't ring true. The academics at the Globe are the conservatives so that even a mainstream populist like Rice is seen as too radical. The management and their allies miss that they are running a living, breathing theatre. The far too obvious dysfunction comes from the structure of the organisation and that needs to change or this will keep happening. The first thing that any worthwhile review would say is that the artistic director has to also be in charge of the greater organisation and its financial decisions. EDIT: The Stage article says that first round inteviews were to take place in May. Any rumours about whether they took place and, if so, who with? |
|
17 posts
|
Post by kryz1000 on Jul 15, 2017 11:40:48 GMT
Oh dear - some of these (off topic) comments barely warrant a response. So - to be brief. The review of management is something that they didn't have to do but they did. They should be commended for such uncommon self examination. Secondly - there are numerous theatre companies (some of which are of considerably less complex structures than the Globe) where the Exec Director outranks the AD.
Great that they're going 'live' with cinema - an important step. But they've done numerous 'encore' screenings before.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 15, 2017 11:57:16 GMT
Oh dear - some of these (off topic) comments barely warrant a response. So - to be brief. The review of management is something that they didn't have to do but they did. They should be commended for such uncommon self examination. Secondly - there are numerous theatre companies (some of which are of considerably less complex structures than the Globe) where the Exec Director outranks the AD. Great that they're going 'live' with cinema - an important step. But they've done numerous 'encore' screenings before. You will be fully aware, no doubt, of how Rice points to being excluded from key decision making. A functional theatre organisation can run with an Exec Director but they tend to be employed as teams. As such, they should be working with an organisation sympathetic to their vision. The proof of the pudding etc., instigating a review is one thing, acting on it is another. I don't suppose you know at what stage the interview process is at? Have there been second round interviews? EDIT: For background, I should point out that, for me, Globe to Globe has been the most exciting period at the venue. When normal service was suspended, as it were. If it were down to me, I would be even more radical than Rice and make it into a more permanent pan-global venue. My own preferences aren't likely to make me conducive to whatever they do now but movement away from what it was to what it could be would be a start. This would involve firewalling the venue from the academic side as a first move. |
|
348 posts
|
Post by cirque on Jul 15, 2017 13:05:51 GMT
It would not have worked....Globe is not Open Air Theatre Regents Park or similar.It has a core mission and has,until ER been considerably more experimental and bold.Witness Lucy Bailey Titus as one example.I do blame board for appointing Rice and believing that a Kneehigh ethos could work.....Globe already had the festival atmosphere,thousands of people of all ages and demographic as audience and an approach that was diverse.Look at Globe To Globe bringing in companies of all nations and styles.
Kneehigh is superb but it has a very different approach and working on core Eliz/Jacobean repertoire needs degrees of scholarship alongside theatricality.The folksy approach of ER has a popular appeal at first but imagine a long term perspective....even Kneehigh have become a formulaic approach.
Wise Children will be a statement of ER approach and belief in making her style of theatre-probably very enjoyable-yet not Globe and a core Shakespeare repertoire.I have said before Rylance and Dromgoole were both experimentalists in their approach-even original practices applied in 21st century is a bold experiment.The latter also commissioned a raft of new plays-some fascinating,some illuminating,some poor but all relating to the epic potential of the house.
There is,right now,in theatre circles a defensive stand alongside ER and certainly the board need their collective heads examined as they knew the type of director/producer they were getting.Did they expect her to suddenly adjust and diversify her approach..?
An AD must be announced soon and the position must go to someone with excellent track record in Shakespeare and classical,epic theatre styles and a love of playing with space and actor-audience dynamics.New AD must not feel audiences are lacking intellect or understanding....A wood near Athens.....is not Hoxton....despite the laugh the line achieved.
Entering the Globe itself is to accept experiment and previous AD's understood this....I cannot see why suddenly it is only ER who brought Globe to the people.Where Globe are now at fault is to keep silent on future and hopes for seasons 2018 and beyond.
Whilst I am on a roll-forgive me-what has happened to some of the Globe company pre ER...? Fine actors and understanding how to transmit the text...and,yes,able to connect with diverse audiences.
Maybe next year-a one off season curated by a guest with a strong idea may be worth thinking on....before everyone else is unavailable.It is troubling to see all the ER coverage,Arts Council support for Wise Children-a company who do not yet exist and the finger given to Globe.Contempt for audiences and a lack of communication will alienate more of us than the boards stupidity over the appointment made last time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jul 15, 2017 15:24:15 GMT
Maybe next year-a one off season curated by a guest with a strong idea may be worth thinking on.... Northern Broadsides was most recently appointed as a resident company but too late to be programmed yet, except for one play in the final Sam Wanamaker Playhouse Winter Season. Perhaps they could bash out some Shakespeare in the Globe from April? |
|
745 posts
|
Post by horton on Jul 16, 2017 9:03:43 GMT
I suppose it is in the nature of an Old Guard to not recognize that it is one.
On my numerous visits to the Globe under the previous regime, I always endured the sense of smug superiority that was in the air, front and rear of house. Dromgoole's 'Dream' was a particularly tedious example of an audience laughing where it was meant to. I thank whoever it was who finally decided we'd seen Pearce Quigley's one joke enough.
Despite her many weaknesses, Emma Rice managed to dust away quite a few of the cobwebs, odd to be found in such a young venue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jul 16, 2017 11:06:21 GMT
"Mark Rylance gave me this tambourine."
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jul 16, 2017 12:17:13 GMT
Not to be controversial but I honestly don't think Rice's directorial style is especially radical, even by Globe standards. And I still believe she was fired for financial reasons (the whole lights/education dept budget kerfuffle) rather than due to programming or style.
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 16, 2017 14:24:30 GMT
I suppose it is in the nature of an Old Guard to not recognize that it is one. On my numerous visits to the Globe under the previous regime, I always endured the sense of smug superiority that was in the air, front and rear of house. Dromgoole's 'Dream' was a particularly tedious example of an audience laughing where it was meant to. I thank whoever it was who finally decided we'd seen Pearce Quigley's one joke enough. Despite her many weaknesses, Emma Rice managed to dust away quite a few of the cobwebs, odd to be found in such a young venue. I didn't sense this 'smug superiority' in the audience. I can't speak for the directorial staff or the front of staff, these being particularly offish from day 1 as we have often commented on here. To my eyes the audience was full of first timers and loads of tourists and 'young people' you know that rare breed we refer to in hushed tones when considering theatre audiences. One or two I've seen it alls...but then with Shakespeare you do get that. ( she blushes) I like the idea of guest directors if not too disruptive for staff. |
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jul 16, 2017 16:03:23 GMT
When Shakespeare's Globe is relayed live to cinematic premises, will the ushers be permitted to use torches or will the Board insist on the use of candles?
|
|
