4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 27, 2016 23:35:18 GMT
"The Producers" sold out 100% on his name at Drury Lane, and the second he left, the box office nose-dived. I'd say they have a pretty good chance of shifting tickets... particularly as I'm already getting emails asking when booking will open, from both the UK and overseas. Maybe but that was more than a decade ago in a smash Broadway production that he had starred in, he's not known generally in UK for anything other than that. I accept he has a loyal following amongst theatrical insiders, as has that particular play, but I doubt the general audience are so interested. To me that NT production looks like a try-out for a Broadway transfer. Yeah you are correct on this and TheatreMokey therefore would be wrong then. Someone who is a trade insider and owns his own theatre agency, someone who saw first hand statistics how the Producers audience dropped once Nathan Lane left through inside knowledge and no doubt would also see industrial data that's not readily available to the public. But you are dead right, Theatremonkey would be wrong then? if the bars don't make much money then, what does at the National?
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Aug 28, 2016 7:31:21 GMT
Intetesting thread. I read most of that NT history book Jan talks about, hod it is hard work! Almost like a series of accounts no wonder it was discounted quickly, i dont think it is even on the shelves of the trendy gift store now in the foyer. Angels will presumably have a fixed run and if the reviews are good transfer to broadway, that is surely the sole reason for the casting of Lane, good actor though he is. The NT almost always seems to be in a precarious position. Their three spaces are hard to fill regularly and even if they have a hit they dont always have a luge beyond the southbank. Tickey prices have taken a bit hike lately. I endef my membership last year coz the repetoire was imo just dull. I cant imagine the new food placed help that much, indeed i agree with othet posters, that part of the south bank us nowadays heaving with people but you gey the feeling not many are going to a performance!
|
|
4,670 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 28, 2016 9:48:16 GMT
Maybe but that was more than a decade ago in a smash Broadway production that he had starred in, he's not known generally in UK for anything other than that. I accept he has a loyal following amongst theatrical insiders, as has that particular play, but I doubt the general audience are so interested. To me that NT production looks like a try-out for a Broadway transfer. Yeah you are correct on this and TheatreMokey therefore would be wrong then. Someone who is a trade insider and owns his own theatre agency, someone who saw first hand statistics how the Producers audience dropped once Nathan Lane left through inside knowledge and no doubt would also see industrial data that's not readily available to the public. But you are dead right, Theatremonkey would be wrong then? if the bars don't make much money then, what does at the National? If you read what I actually said (a top tip there) I am not disputing TheatreMonkey's post at all. He is doubtless entirely right about how The Producer's box office dropped off when Lane left. All I'm saying is that one appearance in London 12 years ago is, in my opinion, not enough for him to be an automatic draw for a UK general theatre audience today. We shall see. I also didn't say the bars don't make much money, I said they don't make much profit. If by "money" you mean income then the NT makes most of theirs from subsidy, sponsorship and ticket sales. You can check their annual reports where they report it. Your claim that the NT is doing a good thing by raising VAT on their bar sales would only be true if those people drinking there would not have bought drinks elsewhere if the NT was shut - looking at them I doubt that is even slightly true, I don't think the NT are attracting a whole new generation of excitingly young and diverse drinkers to their theatre although no doubt they would be thrilled if they were.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 14:27:11 GMT
The Producers was a long time ago now, but the average person in the street still probably has a reasonably good chance of knowing who Nathan Lane is. Not forgetting Andrew Garfield and Russell Tovey, I imagine they're hardly unknown properties either, and Denise Gough is a recent award winner, and Angels In America itself is kind of a big deal. It's going to sell like billy-o, and if Nathan Lane has been offered a higher wage, it's probably not entirely unwarranted (apart from the bit where the NT apparently has no money right now but there's not a lot we can do about that unless we're planning on dying and leaving our worldly wealth to someone who isn't family).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 14:55:14 GMT
I doubt he commands as much money as he once did. He's 60 and hasn't been the lead in a film in over a decade. I really doubt the national wud pay big bucks for him when there are plenty of Brits that could do it on the cheap
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 14:59:28 GMT
I don't think Nathan Lane's career is anywhere near as worried about itself as the people on this board are worried about it. Marianne Elliott thinks he's the best actor for the role, his wage is going to be enough to satisfy him while not being so much that the NT can't afford to pay it, and although I still really can't see him in the role myself, I trust Elliott enough that I'm pretty confident he's going to do a damn fine job.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 15:03:53 GMT
What Baemax said. Marianne Elliot knows what she's doing and I personally feel that Nathan Lane as the right actor for the role/this production is a bigger concern than 'Is Nathan Lane still a star name?' added bonus that yes, actually some people will book on the strength of his name. But equally some will for the rest of the cast, and the play itself.
|
|
6,348 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 30, 2016 15:05:18 GMT
I don't think Lane will be getting the sort of money he got for The Producers (and that was only because they were desperate) but I imagine it's in line with what a name actor would get for a commercial play.
|
|
4,044 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 30, 2016 18:27:28 GMT
Why are people worrying about Lane's draw? It's got Spider-Man in it. It's going to sell like hot-cakes.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 30, 2016 19:22:55 GMT
What Baemax said. Marianne Elliot knows what she's doing and I personally feel that Nathan Lane as the right actor for the role/this production is a bigger concern than 'Is Nathan Lane still a star name?' added bonus that yes, actually some people will book on the strength of his name. But equally some will for the rest of the cast, and the play itself. Marianne Elliot should be the next Artistic Director of the NT. Nicholas Hynter certainly hasn't shared much credit with her for her amazing success.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Aug 30, 2016 21:25:14 GMT
What Baemax said. Marianne Elliot knows what she's doing and I personally feel that Nathan Lane as the right actor for the role/this production is a bigger concern than 'Is Nathan Lane still a star name?' added bonus that yes, actually some people will book on the strength of his name. But equally some will for the rest of the cast, and the play itself. Sorry for the offtop but what part exactly Nathan Lane is going to play in Angels? Roy Cohn?
|
|
887 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Aug 31, 2016 0:15:27 GMT
Yes, Roy Cohn
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 7:45:07 GMT
What Baemax said. Marianne Elliot knows what she's doing and I personally feel that Nathan Lane as the right actor for the role/this production is a bigger concern than 'Is Nathan Lane still a star name?' added bonus that yes, actually some people will book on the strength of his name. But equally some will for the rest of the cast, and the play itself. Sorry for the offtop but what part exactly Nathan Lane is going to play in Angels? Roy Cohn? Yup, Roy Cohn. (Andrew Garfield is Prior, Russell Tovey is Joe, Denise Gough is Harper, Susan Brown is Hannah, Nathan Stewart Jarrett is Belize and James McArdle is Louis the only cast not announced is the Angel) And back to finances
|
|
4,670 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 31, 2016 7:51:31 GMT
What Baemax said. Marianne Elliot knows what she's doing and I personally feel that Nathan Lane as the right actor for the role/this production is a bigger concern than 'Is Nathan Lane still a star name?' added bonus that yes, actually some people will book on the strength of his name. But equally some will for the rest of the cast, and the play itself. Marianne Elliot should be the next Artistic Director of the NT. Nicholas Hynter certainly hasn't shared much credit with her for her amazing success. She should be the CURRENT director alongside Tom Morris but I believe they declined to apply, and I imagine they would decline again next time. My guess is it is somewhat naïve to think that the only reason Nathan Lane is in this is because Elliot thinks he is the best man for the part, that's not how casting of star names at NT works. My guess based on no information at all is they already have a deal with a Broadway producer lined up and if so they get a say in casting. I wonder if the play itself will have the same impact as 23 years ago. Doubtful, it was of its time.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 7:56:56 GMT
I'm not saying it's without 'box office' thought, as is the casting of Garfield, Tovey and Gough who also all have their own audience appeal/reach. In casting those actors as well I think Elliot/NT team is playing it very well in terms of insurance that it will sell across a diverse bunch, because all of those definatly have fan and broader appeal that will sell tickets. You're right that there is always an element of 'will this help us sell' but I also don't believe that Elliot in directing this play would be willing to 'sell out' and just cast a name for the sake of it. I also don't think the NT would want to comprimise the integrity of what is an important production for them.
I promised myself I wouldn't argue with people who think it's dated and not worth producing again though, so I'll just respectfully disagree adn say I think it remains an important play for many reasons.
There's also an actual thread on AiA where this should probably be moved mods?
|
|
4,670 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 31, 2016 8:50:47 GMT
I'm not saying it's without 'box office' thought, as is the casting of Garfield, Tovey and Gough who also all have their own audience appeal/reach. In casting those actors as well I think Elliot/NT team is playing it very well in terms of insurance that it will sell across a diverse bunch, because all of those definatly have fan and broader appeal that will sell tickets. You're right that there is always an element of 'will this help us sell' but I also don't believe that Elliot in directing this play would be willing to 'sell out' and just cast a name for the sake of it. I also don't think the NT would want to comprimise the integrity of what is an important production for them. I promised myself I wouldn't argue with people who think it's dated and not worth producing again though, so I'll just respectfully disagree adn say I think it remains an important play for many reasons. There's also an actual thread on AiA where this should probably be moved mods? Scheduling of the production and casting of Lane may have been in place well before Elliot was involved. We don't know. It does not matter either way of course. Just as an example here's how one famous NT production happened: Helen Mirren tells Trevor Nunn she wants to play Cleopatra. Nunn does not want to direct as he has directed a famous version of it before. He offers it to 21 other directors all of whom turn it down. He offers it to Sean Matthias who has never directed Shakespeare before and twists his arm to do it. Alan Bates has agreed to play Antony but withdraws late due to injury. They can't find a replacement, eventually almost as a favour Alan Rickman agrees to step in. Disaster results. What I mean is that for all we know, like Mirren, Lane came first.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 31, 2016 9:14:37 GMT
Scheduling of the production and casting of Lane may have been in place well before Elliot was involved. We don't know. It does not matter either way of course. Just as an example here's how one famous NT production happened: Helen Mirren tells Trevor Nunn she wants to play Cleopatra. Nunn does not want to direct as he has directed a famous version of it before. He offers it to 21 other directors all of whom turn it down. He offers it to Sean Matthias who has never directed Shakespeare before and twists his arm to do it. Alan Bates has agreed to play Antony but withdraws late due to injury. They can't find a replacement, eventually almost as a favour Alan Rickman agrees to step in. Disaster results. What I mean is that for all we know, like Mirren, Lane came first. To remind y'all of the timeline of announcements of this show, to preview from late April2017 and open in May 2017: 3 Feb 2016 Marianne Elliot and Andrew Garfield 7 Apr 2016 Denise Gough and Russell Tovey 14 June 2016 rest of cast, inc. Nathan Lane No co-producer or associated producer has been announced.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 31, 2016 9:19:03 GMT
Just as an example here's how one famous NT production happened: Helen Mirren tells Trevor Nunn she wants to play Cleopatra. Surely you mean "infamous"? Helen Mirren had previously played a memorable studio Cleopatra for the RSC, directed by Adrian Noble, in a distractingly diaphonous costume at The Other Place and The Pit. Why did the other 21 directors turn the Olivier show down? It hadn't been very long since the last, highly popular, NT Olivier Ant & Cleo which had starred Hannibal Lecter and Sally Bowles. Were the directors afraid their retread would be less liked?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 9:22:10 GMT
Maybe Lane gets to keep Tovey as part of the deal.....
|
|
4,670 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 31, 2016 9:32:04 GMT
I promised myself I wouldn't argue with people who think it's dated and not worth producing again though, so I'll just respectfully disagree adn say I think it remains an important play for many reasons Well no one has actually said that. It's a certainty that it is dated but it is probably worth producing occasionally, like Look Back in Anger. I'm a bit resistant to the NT being quite so fixated by the USA though. I wonder if Tony Kushner will be involved, probably hard to stop him. For the original NT production the director Declan Donnellan threatened to quit unless they banned him from the rehearsal room (which they did).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 9:37:30 GMT
Tovey does appear to be settling in New York rather (apart from the cockroaches) so it's not beyond the bounds of probability that a New York transfer will be in the offing.
I don't see why it has to be binary, though. Why does it have to be "Nathan Lane is the man Marianne Elliott wanted for the job" OR "the producers wanted Nathan Lane because he is famous"? Why can't it be a compromise? Much as we would all agree that the best person for the job should be the person who gets the job, we should bear in mind that skill is not the only criterion for deciding who will be the best person for the job. They should also be suitably reliable, they should understand what the director is hoping to achieve and be willing to go for it, they should have an idea of what they want to bring to the table and have that be reasonably compatible with the director's initial thoughts, they should be available (and allowed, in the case of international performers) to work during the period in question, they should be willing to work for the wage that is offered, they should be willing to be a part of the ensemble and not go off and do their own thing, and ideally they'd be able to get on well with the rest of the company and not be a heinous tool. I get that compromises are made in casting and you're not necessarily going to get someone who fits all of that, but if you can get someone who pleases the director and the producers and works well with the rest of the company, then you've not only made a compromise, you have ultimately cast the best person for the job in all respects.
Imagine casting someone who's an absolutely brilliant actor, but who bankrupts the producers while making enemies of every single cast, crew, and creative in the building. Definitely NOT the best person for the job!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 9:44:57 GMT
What Baemax said- in this and all casting really. I think the NT is concious enough of it's history/reputation to rarely gamble on just star names, but to actually consider all the elements (are they a good actor, the right actor, are they reliable/generally not too much of a dick) as all these things make for a good production. And it's as Baemax rightly says, about getting the right fit for what the director wants to achieve. Given that Elliot took her time casting what is at it's centre an ensemble piece, I'm fairly confident in saying it wasn't cast around any names but the fact that they could get those name(s) is a happy addition. Re: Angels itself, I would be very surprised if Kushner isn't involved in some capacity, as he likes to be involved with all major productions, and generally is involved if there are any radical changes involved-he was involved in the Headlong production in 2007 as there were script tweaks, and in the Signature and Chicago productions more reccently. And yes Jan Brock I did know that story...I wrote my PhD on this play, I know many stories about it.
|
|
4,670 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 31, 2016 9:55:17 GMT
What Baemax said- in this and all casting really. I think the NT is concious enough of it's history/reputation to rarely gamble on just star names, but to actually consider all the elements (are they a good actor, the right actor, are they reliable/generally not too much of a dick) as all these things make for a good production. And it's as Baemax rightly says, about getting the right fit for what the director wants to achieve. Given that Elliot took her time casting what is at it's centre an ensemble piece, I'm fairly confident in saying it wasn't cast around any names but the fact that they could get those name(s) is a happy addition. Re: Angels itself, I would be very surprised if Kushner isn't involved in some capacity, as he likes to be involved with all major productions, and generally is involved if there are any radical changes involved-he was involved in the Headlong production in 2007 as there were script tweaks, and in the Signature and Chicago productions more reccently. And yes Jan Brock I did know that story...I wrote my PhD on this play, I know many stories about it. That story is from the NT book I referenced first in this thread. Kushner is obviously a nightmare to work with.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 31, 2016 9:56:23 GMT
She should be the CURRENT director alongside Tom Morris but I believe they declined to apply, and I imagine they would decline again next time. One reason given by Marianne Elliot last time was that her daughter was only eight. This reason won't apply next time. I'm so glad that Tom Morris stayed on at Bristol Old Vic to see through all the stages of Transformation there. The final development has recently been started and will be completed in a couple of years, so again he would be free to move on next time.
|
|
4,670 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 31, 2016 10:13:53 GMT
She should be the CURRENT director alongside Tom Morris but I believe they declined to apply, and I imagine they would decline again next time. One reason given by Marianne Elliot last time was that her daughter was only eight. This reason won't apply next time. I'm so glad that Tom Morris stayed on at Bristol Old Vic to see through all the stages of Transformation there. The final development has recently been started and will be completed in a couple of years, so again he would be free to move on next time. Even if Norris doesn't extend his contract those two would be mid-50s when the next director is appointed, I would hope there would be some candidates amongst the younger generation. Like Mendes they may find passing on their best chance of getting the job means they never get it.
|
|
4,044 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 31, 2016 12:59:01 GMT
Somehow I don't think Mendes is too upset about missing out on the NT job, given what else he has been doing! Edit: I'm not sure why the quoted text keeps disappearing....but I think it's probably obvious enough what I'm responding to!
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 31, 2016 14:06:31 GMT
I didn't think Sam Mendes was interested in it now, and he'd be unsuitable anyway.
|
|
4,670 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on Aug 31, 2016 16:27:36 GMT
I didn't think Sam Mendes was interested in it now, and he'd be unsuitable anyway. He or Daldry could have had the job instead of Hytner but both declined after stringing the NT along for a while. Mirren had played Cleo twice before the NT version. She briefly appeared nude in it. From that I assume Terry Johnson wasn't among the 21 directors asked, he'd have jumped at it. The NT book is mute on why so many directors turned it down but I think she has a reputation of being a bit difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Aug 31, 2016 21:19:07 GMT
He or Daldry could have had the job instead of Hytner but both declined after stringing the NT along for a while. Is that taken from the book you're relaying to us?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 25, 2016 16:31:07 GMT
Update.... "Rufus Norris' first year as director of the National Theatre has seen ticket sales at the South Bank venue hit a seven-year high, with the organisation playing to an average capacity of 88%. The NT's annual review for 2015/16 charts the first full year of Norris' tenure running the theatre, alongside Lisa Burger as executive director. It revealed that the average capacity of the NT's four South Bank spaces was 88%, 2% lower than the previous year. Despite this, the NT sold 787,000 tickets, the highest in seven years. The theatre created 27 new productions for its London home, two more than in 2014/15. The 2015/16 annual review also states that the number of bookers under the age of 35 has increased by 75%, and that the average age of all bookers had dropped to 51, closer to the national average of 47 and down from 55 last year. The NT's total income for the year was £118.5 million, slightly up on the previous year’s figure of £117.7 million. Box office accounted for 60% of income across the NT, the West End and touring, both in the UK and internationally. Earlier this year the NT committed to ensuring gender equality in the directors and living writers it employs by 2021. In 2015/16, 47% of new work at the NT was by female writers, with 43% of its directors being female. The equality measures were announced in February as part of a drive to increase diversity across the NT's South Bank home, with the aim of ensuring that 20% of work is written or adapted by people of colour by 2021, and 20% of directors are people of colour by the same date. The review revealed that in 2015/16, these figures were 12% and 10% respectively. Its target for 25% of performers to be people of colour was exceeded, at 31%." www.thestage.co.uk/news/2016/national-theatre-ticket-sales-hit-seven-year-high-under-rufus-norris/
|
|