Globe All Seasons

It's very odd to be in the Abbey with so few people. One moment Mark Rylance is doing Caliban's speech about the isle being "full of noises" next to the tomb of Elizabeth I, and then he exits, and everyone follows him out, and I find myself totally alone with the tomb of Elizabeth I. No noises any more, just my footsteps.

Nothing was happening in the tomb of Henry VII, so I go in, and it's just me and Henry VII. Weird.

Phillip Arditti was one of the actors, and every time I came across him, all I could see was Uri Savir, the peacemaker he played so well, and so humorously, in "Oslo." It was nice to have the avatar of Uri Savir spreading a bit of peace about among the tombs of so many war makers.

Beatriz Romilly reprised her "Much Ado" Beatrice role from last year's Globe season, in the room with all the red velvet chairs that face each other. She performed the "Kill Claudio" speech with Mark Rylance replacing Matthew Needham as Benedick. At the Globe, Matthew Needham was a Latin Revolutionary Benedick, in a sombrero, so his macho indignance at Beatrice's extreme request got a big laugh. No laughs this time, as Rylance took the righteous fury of Romilly's exhortation to murder utterly seriously, with fearful placidity and pliant grace.

Romilly was exceptionally good, though I do hope her furious murderous Beatrice subsequently ran into Phillip Arditti's Uri Savir, and went to the pub to talk peace over a pint.

And my highlight was Sir Mark performing To be or not to be, in a small side chapel, for at least part of which he was looking me straight in the eye. There were quite a few people present, but it felt personal. So many different highlights for different people - but there seemed more of an emphasis on the history plays this time - but maybe that was just our experience. The gathering together for the song at the end was a truly joyous way to conclude the evening.

Looking at the cast list now I realise I missed loads including the majority of the scenes mentioned above and how on earth did anyone find time to admire at the same time, it seemed like we'd barely arrived and it finished. Could have happily explored this for hours more.

Get 2 for 1 standing tickets by entering promo code 2KINSMEN41 online, or quoting the code over the phone or at the box office. If you’d rather sit, quote NOBLE20 for £20 best available seats.*

Offers for the globe, looks like this production may be slow in selling.

Same as with a conventionally cast version of the play - depends on who the actors are. I saw the play at NT with Fiona Shaw in the lead - in theory good casting but in practice rather disappointing.

"Multi racial" casting is the norm now, surely - only worth mentioning when a cast is surprisingly white (eg Knights of the Rose, the Kingston-upon-Thames War of the Roses).

All female cast - why not. They've done all male casts at the Globe enough times. Actually they've done an all-female productions at the Globe alongside the all-male productions in 2003 - www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/jun/13/shakespeares-globe-theatre-20th-birthday

Why should we even comment on race now in Theatre casting? Do we mean ethnic groups, or colour of skin or what? So proper daft now. Talent is all that counts. Gender blind is different. Honour the author's intention.

When a production is created to fulfil an agenda, this is a risk that it fails to serve the play and the audience because the focus is on something external, something other.

The aim of anyone tackling a play like Richard II should be to tell the story of those characters and to celebrate the language of the script.  Anything less than that is not what I am looking for when I go to the theatre.

Every choice has to have a reason that has some clear relevance to the text.  You must, as an audience member, be able to see why a choice has been made.  It should not require further illumination from a note in a programme or an interview in the media.

I need there to be a reason for making a production in a certain way.  Having an all-female ensemble is great - if you are seeking to explore the contrasts between original performance techniques and how that works with female rather than male actors.  It is great if you want to look at the differences between male attitudes towards leadership and those exhibited by women.  There are plenty of valid ways of exploring the questions raised by Richard II as a play and Shakespeare as a theatremaker.

I am always less convinced by deciding on an all-ANYTHING production simply because you want to.  There has to be a theatrical case to be made for that decision.  It has to grow out of the text not be imposed on it.

I appreciate that I almost certainly have a view that is not widely shared on topics like this.  But I am very much of the belief that with Shakespeare (and many other writers), you start with the text.  Every decision you take, every choice you make has to be in response to that text. That does not mean being slavish or reverential about it.  It is the starting point for your journey through the play.  I don't like productions where things feel like they were imposed on the original.

In my own work with Shakespeare, I have not once stuck to the original genders of all the characters.  I have always cut and reshaped the text (to a lesser or greater extent) and I love productions where enormous risks have been taken.  So I am in no way a purist.

Would I consider working with an all-female ensemble in a production I was seeking to stage?  Absolutely - but only if I felt that it offered something to the play not just because I wanted to work with an all-female cast.  

With all this discussion we really have to ask what theatre is. It is certainly not, by it's very mechanics, literal or realistic. It uses artifice to tell it's stories- using artifice in lighting, music, design, choreography, staging - none of it literal, so why should that apply to the actors. The word I think we should use is credible. Does that actor provide a credible character in the moment of the performance?

Anyone booking a jury ticket for the Ralegh thing? Can't decide whether I'd need to concentrate too much!

I refuse to see plays that make a huge deal of the identity politics of the cast or team as a promotional tool. It's such an obvious targeted ad towards the type of people that are most likely to go the theatre, which also happen to be kind of people who are fixated on this stuff, white middle-class Londoners. I am a "person of colour" (hate that expression) and my friends and I would never choose a play based on this. It's for people to pat themselves on the back.

If it just happened to be a performance of Richard 2 that by chance had a entirely "women of colour" cast then I guess that would be difference, but as usual it's front and centre. Also is choosing a cast based on skin colour even legal? Patronising and awkward.