|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 14:19:47 GMT
My understanding, which could easily be completely wrong, is that there are no star salaries at the National- the pay scales are the regardless of who you are. The Almeida have a similar rule. I seem to remember hearing that they get round it by paying some of their stars a pre-rehearsal fee. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 15:40:47 GMT
My understanding, which could easily be completely wrong, is that there are no star salaries at the National- the pay scales are the regardless of who you are. The Almeida have a similar rule. I seem to remember hearing that they get round it by paying some of their stars a pre-rehearsal fee. Yeah Simone Russella Beale says he could never afford the house in the country he's always dreamed of coz he likes working at the Nat and Rsc rather than commercial theatre. I reckon he shud play the Brian Blessed part in Cats for some wonga (rather than relying on Wonga) |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 27, 2016 16:58:27 GMT
The Almeida have a similar rule. I seem to remember hearing that they get round it by paying some of their stars a pre-rehearsal fee. Yeah Simone Russella Beale says he could never afford the house in the country he's always dreamed of coz he likes working at the Nat and Rsc rather than commercial theatre. I reckon he shud play the Brian Blessed part in Cats for some wonga (rather than relying on Wonga) Did he mention how much he got paid for Spamalot ? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 17:19:11 GMT
Yeah Simone Russella Beale says he could never afford the house in the country he's always dreamed of coz he likes working at the Nat and Rsc rather than commercial theatre. I reckon he shud play the Brian Blessed part in Cats for some wonga (rather than relying on Wonga) Did he mention how much he got paid for Spamalot ? A lifetimes supply of corned beef |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 18:30:43 GMT
I've been reading Simon Stephens Working Diary, he mentioned that he was making £15K a month at one point from Curious Incident royalties.
|
|
5,056 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!
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
7,179 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.
|
|
4,156 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.
|
|
5,056 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. |
|
830 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? |
|
904 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  |
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
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 Deleted 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 Deleted 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.....
|
|
|
|
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). |
|
