5,431 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 28, 2017 16:59:22 GMT
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 28, 2017 18:23:32 GMT
Some very valid points made there, regardless of your opinion of Emma Rice.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 28, 2017 19:03:45 GMT
Yes, indeed. It's very difficult to understand how a brand-new company got such a big chunk of funding on the basis of being in the South West without actually having any productions in the South West announced, when other regional organisations with strong track records had their funding cut.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jul 28, 2017 19:08:08 GMT
Yes, indeed. It's very difficult to understand how a brand-new company got such a big chunk of funding on the basis of being in the South West without actually having any productions in the South West announced, when other regional organisations with strong track records had their funding cut. Maybe by southwest she merely was referring to the Old Vic being southwest of the Globe.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 28, 2017 19:12:11 GMT
Or they assumed she meant the Bristol Old Vic?
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 28, 2017 20:36:54 GMT
The couple opposite me on the train, must think I've got serious head lice.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 29, 2017 7:20:05 GMT
|
|
4,591 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jul 29, 2017 7:53:29 GMT
I'm not sure how true the article is but if you compare the funding to Doncaster Cast and Rice's new baby living at the Old Vic then I'm angry
|
|
5,431 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 29, 2017 12:52:45 GMT
That response doesn't really cut the mustard. If you look at ACE funding decisions it is very obvious that artistic nepotism (for want of a better phrase) clearly plays an unspoken role. The response also doesn't come close to answering how a company based at the Old Vic can be said to be a South West company. Or how a company with no history can get such a huge wodge of public cash particularly when that seems to run contrary to the published rules for applicants. Companies spend years building up to MOP status. Not a few days. I can understand the sympathy towards Rice after the events of this year. I really can. But this funding decision just looks like ACE breaking their own rules to compensate her. And that is not their role in all this. Rice should absolutely return to her theatrical roots and continue her style of theatre making. But two million quid of public money seems an over generous bit of seed funding for her future.
|
|
5,431 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 29, 2017 16:46:21 GMT
That response doesn't really cut the mustard. If you look at ACE funding decisions it is very obvious that artistic nepotism (for want of a better phrase) clearly plays an unspoken role. The response also doesn't come close to answering how a company based at the Old Vic can be said to be a South West company. Or how a company with no history can get such a huge wodge of public cash particularly when that seems to run contrary to the published rules for applicants. Companies spend years building up to NOP status. Not a few days. I can understand the sympathy towards Rice after the events of this year. I really can. But this funding decision just looks like ACE breaking their own rules to compensate her. And that is not their role in all this. Rice should absolutely return to her theatrical roots and continue her style of theatre making. But two million quid of public money seems an over generous bit of seed funding for her future.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 29, 2017 17:11:16 GMT
The response also doesn't come close to answering how a company based at the Old Vic can be said to be a South West company. The Old Vic is you know is in Waterloo, where you also catch trains to the 'South West'. The new proposed Kings Cross Theatre has in its business plan, to receive funding earmarked for North East Scoland.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 29, 2017 22:30:49 GMT
So she gets a London launch with no funding but all the clout of the Old Vic and then she has to go to Cornwall. Right?
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 29, 2017 23:23:32 GMT
That appears to be the argument. But it makes me wonder how many other people get regional funding because their brand-new theatre company 'will be nationally significant'. It looks an awful lot like they have thrown money at her just because she is Emma Rice, and it came from the South West pot because that's where she is from.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 1:02:57 GMT
Certainly you could say it is London biassed when companies such as Northern Broadsides had their grants hugely cut.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jul 30, 2017 21:25:58 GMT
Certainly you could say it is London biassed when companies such as Northern Broadsides had their grants hugely cut. Northern Broadsides was granted standstill funding for 2018-22.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 30, 2017 21:42:58 GMT
Certainly you could say it is London biassed when companies such as Northern Broadsides had their grants hugely cut. Northern Broadsides was granted standstill funding for 2018-22. Also, the funding for the year cut that of the flagships especially, with their London bias, and redistributed it among the regions. On checking, the figure has increased to over 60% for outside London, up from 55.8%
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 30, 2017 22:02:59 GMT
Is there an updated spreadsheet on who gets what please?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 30, 2017 22:12:36 GMT
|
|
572 posts
|
Post by princeton on Jul 31, 2017 1:33:31 GMT
Interesting point buried in that original article about Matthew Bourne’s dance company Re:Bourne being based in the South East and the money coming out of that 'pot' - even though their headquarters is in London. They certainly tour nationally and their website refers to a partnership with the Farnham Maltings, but are also a resident company at Sadler's Wells. Surely they don't get over a million pounds a year for community based work in Farnham? They are not alone in the dance world for seeming to get funded away from their home base: the Russell Maliphant Company which has its productions offices at Sadler's Wells and a rehearsal studio in West London gets its funding from the East 'pot' while the Hofesh Shechter company (production office London) gets funded from the South East - even though its current production is going nowhere near there. Clearly all are good companies producing high-quality, innovative work which deserves funding - and there might be good reason why they are all funded as regional organisations. However to the untrained eye it seems to highlight the slightly muddy nature of how the Arts Councils allocates its funds - particularly in order to tell the out-of-London narrative. More transparency about the decision making would be a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 31, 2017 6:47:24 GMT
Rice has been part of the theatre establishment for years. They look after their own.
|
|
5,431 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 31, 2017 9:28:03 GMT
Rice has been part of the theatre establishment for years. They look after their own. In other sectors, that might be seen as being corrupt...
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jul 31, 2017 9:54:18 GMT
Rice has been part of the theatre establishment for years. They look after their own. In other sectors, that might be seen as being corrupt... (Echo) Wise Children's funding application was probably strong enough to deserve its grant. I fail to see a problem here.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jul 31, 2017 9:54:44 GMT
One person's 'proven international success and national reach' is now, apparently a bad (corrupt?!?) thing. I can understand small scale companies trying to get on the ladder being annoyed but if they would follow the pathway of 1927, say, and show that they, too, can do it, they would also profit.
On Matthew Bourne, his company is 'New Adventures', 'Re: Bourne' is the charitable arm working with communities and on training. His previous company, Adventures in Motion Pictures, fell apart but that's another story.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2017 20:37:41 GMT
Emma would be seen as having a proven track record so it may have been felt giving her funding was a safe choice compared to newer less proven people running companies.
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Jul 31, 2017 22:56:57 GMT
There are plenty of theatres and theatre companies struggling to make ends meet. It makes no sense to award such a huge sum of money to a company set up nine days before the application deadline without any apparent commitment to a minimum number of productions or anything.
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Not that Ms. Rice would recognise the quote anyway.
|
|
4,591 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Aug 1, 2017 14:51:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 1, 2017 18:58:19 GMT
In other sectors, that might be seen as being corrupt... (Echo) Wise Children's funding application was probably strong enough to deserve its grant. I fail to see a problem here. You fail to see a problem only because you agree with the decision. What is slightly depressing is that despite having a large and devoted audience Rice didn't feel confident enough to set up a commercial company as several similarly experienced directors have done - Grandage, Hytner, Elliot, Dromgoolge - but came cap in hand to the taxpayer again thus squeezing out younger directors actively needing support - another middle-aged bed-blocker keeping the younger generation out.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 1, 2017 19:09:00 GMT
Emma would be seen as having a proven track record so it may have been felt giving her funding was a safe choice compared to newer less proven people running companies. What exactly is the purpose of funding if it isn't to support newer less proven companies. If she is so proven and safe then why does she need public money at all ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 19:14:50 GMT
Emma would be seen as having a proven track record so it may have been felt giving her funding was a safe choice compared to newer less proven people running companies. What exactly is the purpose of funding if it isn't to support newer less proven companies. If she is so proven and safe then why does she need public money at all ? A lot depends on what level of risk the ACE wants to take, if they give money to riskier undertakings then they can be called out. The RSC and NT both get generous funding when they already have fairly captive audiences and are well established.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 1, 2017 19:29:52 GMT
Emma would be seen as having a proven track record so it may have been felt giving her funding was a safe choice compared to newer less proven people running companies. What exactly is the purpose of funding if it isn't to support newer less proven companies. If she is so proven and safe then why does she need public money at all ? If you would remove funding from the National, RSC etc, then that is consistent, if destructive. Do you really want funding removed from all flagship organisations?
|
|