The Globe

I'm unhappy about it all really. I had a Best Friend membership which I haven't renewed. I went to Midsummer Night's Dream, which to me was a complete car crash. Macbeth was better but still pretty mediocre. I had a ticket for Taming of the Shrew but didn't bother going.

In past years I've gone to 5 or 6 productions every season at The Globe, and since the SWP opened, maybe another 2 or 3 there as well. I can't see me doing that in the immediate future. I liked the idea of The Globe, the fact that they did they plays in (more or less) Elizabethan dress made it unique. It's now just another theatre where they do Shakespeare in modern dress.

I've booked for the Sam Wanamaker Autumn/Winter season. So jury still out on Globe.

It is not really Kneehigh is it ? Just the former Kneehigh director has taken over. Just as Hampstead is not Propellor. It is a bold choice to pick someone who constantly says she doesn't like or understand much of Shakespeare as written. However, as someone who has hated all previous regimes at the Globe it may be a change for the better. Her Dream sounded like the first thing that interested me there for ages and I only didn't see it because I've seen the play twice already this year. The Wannamaker Playhouse prices are so high I never go.

I saw a midsummer nights dream and really enjoyed it. I can see why people do not like Emma Rices new style as when you go to the globe you expect a classic show but that is why I enjoyed AMND as it was different and really fun. I don't think people should making such a fuss about her style as it is brining new people like me to the globe and making Shakespeare much more interesting.

Some comments on this board have expressed bafflement over why the Globes new production of a midsummer’s night dream has provoked quite a hostile reaction: let me proffer a couple of points to help clarify the situation.

First is what Emma Rice has physically done to the theatre and the implications of those changes- what Rice has done is taken an Elizabethan Theatre and effectively tried to modernise it-thus removing in one stoke its purpose: to produce plays in as authentic an environment as possible( also to be honest the new lights around the upper gallery give the theatre a feel of being in a film set rather than a theatre). I always enjoyed seeing how a director would rise to the challenge of setting a play in the Globe without the use of lights etc. (take a look at Titus Andronicus I loved the use of the black sheets) and some of the plays have been ingenious-but now what particular challenge has been removed which is a shame. By removing the challenges of the Globe stage you end up with plays which are less interesting to watch-the creative tension between the old and the new is removed (or at least reduced). I like seeing directors push the limits of what the Elizabethan stage physically and emotionally can do- but within the physical limits of the Elizabethan stage: once you change those physical boundaries it ceases to be a Elizabethan stage.
There is also a potential danger to the Globe-why come to the Globe when you can see the same production in a modern theatre with more comfortable seats? You will be trying to complete with more modern theatres which have better technical facilities than something bolted on ad hoc.
The lights themselves I found physically uncomfortable –I saw shrew three times:the first two I had to leave in the interval as the lights gave me a headache and in the third I waited until the interval to enter the theatre to watch the second half. I happen to be Dyslexic so my eyes can be a bit sensitive-but this is the first time in a theatre that this has happened to me.

The sound system is also a bit of a disaster-apart from the odd jet and Chinook helicopters I have never had too much trouble hearing-even when sat in the back of the middle Gallery (normally I stand).The new sound system I found affected the clarity of the lines so it is rather
harder to hear rather than clearer.

Second the changes made have at best reduced, at worse, destroyed the unique connection between audience and players- the Globe is now just another theatre with the actors in the light and the audience in the dark: the point of the Globe which was to create the Elizabethan stage and experiment within those limits-in essence not to move forward but to move back and rediscover the maqic of the first proper theatre. Sadly the changes made have destroyed that magic.
Now let me make it clear that I am not a “purist” :I liked the mix of traditional and modern plays that have been on previously, ideally they should have a 50-50 split each season so everybody is at least equally unhappy.. I normally have tickets to about 25 shows over the season and will see (depending on on-call rotas etc) about 20-22:I always try so see the non-Shakespeare plays so I don’t think that
A) I am closed minded
B) A Snob

It is also my sixteen season so I hope that I try to be as broadminded as I can be.
To be honest I was so shocked with what Emma Rice had done I left at the interval but in a week or two I will see MSND for a second time: count these as first impressions. I went during the first week of the run.

I have seen Dromgoole’s production and the previous one before that (which was also a modern style) both highly enjoyable-this time however the play felt overladen with spurious gags which broke the flow of the action. Meow-meow is outstanding-the other actors seemed esp. oberon underpowered and at times inaudible. I have no real problems with directors changing texts but some of the changes made no sense to me- I still have no idea what a hoxton hipster is/was/may be.
In short-put this play on in small/medium size indoor theatre and it will be blast and call it an adaptation (because that it really what it is) for honesties sake.
One final point regarding Emma Rice herself-I don’t blame her for what she has done- she was probably given a brief to shake things up and try to attract a new younger audience and to be fair she has done the first very well-the second remains to be seen..

Probably not, it's a small theatre and all the standing spaces are assigned. It also gets quite warm on the upper levels so the last thing anyone would want would be to squeeze up closer to their neighbours. If there were already spaces to begin with, you might be able to, but if the spaces are all sold and occupied, then it would be uncomfortable and awkward for everyone. Also there's no way to know at the moment if the stewards are likely to be understanding or total jobsworths! (Unless you offered to swap with one of the standers, I suppose, rather than just join them, but I wouldn't recommend it, 'cos visibility is dire from the Upper Gallery...)

WAIT I assumed for some silly reason you were asking about the Sam Wanamaker! If you're referring to the Globe, it's unlikely anyone will check if you sneak into the yard at the interval, or if you've booked in one of the floor-level seating areas then simply just don't go all the way to your seat! There's a lot of new stewards going on at the moment, so I couldn't say if they're likely to be flexible if you specifically ask them, and I can't guarantee they'll let your ticket go unchecked, but it's usually possible to move yourself unobtrusively.

Thanks Baemax, it was indeed the Glove I was asking about, I've been in the Sam Wanamaker and there's no way you could just wander into somewhere you hadn't booked for - when I booked to see Macbeth in a few weeks time , I wasn't keen on the idea of standing for three hours (I am probably one of the few people that goes to football matches that doesn't miss standing on terraces whatsoever) but reading people describing the seating in the Globe as uncomfortable has been playing on my mind ever since.

The stewards there are volunteers and get paid nothing. What do we think about that ? Slave labour at less than minimum wage ? What other commercial theatre gets away with that ? Given the political views of the directorate how can they possibly justify it ?

Just out of interest which other theatres have volunteer stewards ?

I don't really see why if they have volunteer stewards they shouldn't have volunteer supporting actors too who get paid nothing but gain from the exposure. As they would be volunteering for charity it shouldn't be a problem.

Theatres I know of with volunteer ushers in/around London: Southwark Playhouse, Rose Kingston, The Gate, The Bush, Waterloo East, London Theatre Workshop, Greenwich Theatre, Park Theatre...

Anyone see 946 yet? I saw it last night and found it delightful and moving. I admit, it took me a while to get into it; I found the first half-hour or so to be a bit tough, but it really picked up after that, and in the end I loved it. I thoroughly enjoyed Kneehigh's production of Tristan and Yseult when I saw it in New York, and I was curious to see another of their productions.

I also see they're bringing back The Merchant of Venice with Jonathan Pryce. I saw it in New York and was generally unimpressed by the production, and disappointed somewhat by Pryce's performance - it wasn't bad, by any means, but could have been a lot more, knowing how capable of an actor Pryce is. Having said that, I imagine the production would probably work much better at The Globe than the venue it played in New York (a large theatre at Lincoln Center built for Jazz concerts - totally wrong for Shakespeare, despite somewhat ironically being called "The Rose"). Did anyone here see this production? Anyone planning to see it in its upcoming return engagement?

I'd be very curious to hear what people think of Merchant, as well as 946. I'm also seeing Midsummer next week with my class and very intrigued by this production.