4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 29, 2017 10:37:14 GMT
Yeah, I have to say this production appeals to me so little that I didn't bother entering the work draw for free tickets, but it's still not worth getting this worked up about.
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Apr 29, 2017 15:56:45 GMT
Haven't seen the play yet but am sceptical that Rice's firing was really about creative/artistic choices at all... though clearly the Board messed up in how they handled things.
Honestly though most of what's being called "radical" (gender-swapping, setting in modern day) is really only radical if you've just woken from a 50 year coma. I liked her Dream and I'm sure the production was her response to the text (as all good directing should be) rather than a conscious predetermined choice to be "radical." But I get the impression some of the journalists writing about it have never actually been to the Globe before. And really most Shakespeare that I've seen over the past ten years has involved some level of "radical" reinvention/gender swapping/race-blind casting/modernising. In my experience it's relatively less common to see 'straight' traditional doublet and hose Shakespeare these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 9:27:33 GMT
I would truly love for someone to explain to me why re-interpretation of a text is always hailed as 'dumbing down' when it comes to Shakespeare. I can't help but think that the man who borrowed from 100s of sources directly and clearly took on the trends and influences of his own time wouldn't, if presented with a Tardis say 'Aye well done I'd never have thought of doing it this way' and sat back and enjoyed the performance. And also if we are playing by the rules of 'as it was handed down to us' why has a woman ever been allowed to set foot on stage at The Globe then for a start? Except that radical re-interpretation isn't always denounced as 'dumbing-down'. Ivo van Hove's Roman Tragedies were adored earlier this year. Icke's Hamlet, Ostermeier's various Shakespeares, Deborah Warner's Lear and all her earlier stuff have received widespread praise. What matters is the intelligence and theatrical vision with which it is done.
Though, as someone said earlier, it's not worth getting worked up about as there'll be another one along in a minute.
The "always" on my part was slight hybrbole following on from the slightly um "frustrating" posts earlier in the thread. I do know that many an adaptation is hailed as brilliant by more open minded types, just not the type of previous poster in this thread. |
|
115 posts
|
Post by Peach on Apr 30, 2017 12:42:11 GMT
I saw it on Friday and really enjoyed it and did the majority of the audience from what I can tell. You could have heard a pin drop during the final scene so I thoroughly disagree with the critic who complained it had no heart.
Two thoroughly engaging leads, I liked the lighting effects and the music. The Prince doesn't appear - he is a disembodied voice of judgement which worked for me.
Doesn't go off on as many tangents as last year's Dream but sticks to the text (as far as I can tell) and is more coherant for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 13:21:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 1, 2017 9:46:33 GMT
I see Daniel Kramer says his production was influenced by the HBO series Six Feet Under, which sort of says all you need to know about him. I was surprised to see he is artistic director of the ENO. Very - ahem - brave of a wildly dysfunctional organisation like that to appoint him to rescue them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 10:16:44 GMT
I see Daniel Kramer says his production was influenced by the HBO series Six Feet Under, which sort of says all you need to know about him. I was surprised to see he is artistic director of the ENO. Very - ahem - brave of a wildly dysfunctional organisation like that to appoint him to rescue them. Then I suppose he's not in the running for Artistic Director of Shakespeare's Globe. Maybe Emma Rice will accept a return invitation to direct an opera for English National Opera. |
|
24 posts
|
Post by nobunaga on May 1, 2017 11:13:41 GMT
|
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on May 1, 2017 12:46:34 GMT
I see Daniel Kramer says his production was influenced by the HBO series Six Feet Under, which sort of says all you need to know about him. I was surprised to see he is artistic director of the ENO. Very - ahem - brave of a wildly dysfunctional organisation like that to appoint him to rescue them. Indeedio Jan, the ENO are frankly on borrowed time. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 13:07:10 GMT
I see Daniel Kramer says his production was influenced by the HBO series Six Feet Under, which sort of says all you need to know about him. I was surprised to see he is artistic director of the ENO. Very - ahem - brave of a wildly dysfunctional organisation like that to appoint him to rescue them. Six Feet Under finished 12 years ago! He's down with the kids. |
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on May 1, 2017 13:41:18 GMT
Let's guess new AD now applications closed...
My choice. Eve Best. Could change being fickle.
|
|
848 posts
|
Post by duncan on May 1, 2017 13:59:39 GMT
I'm confident.
I've proposed that my first season is the entire Shakey cannon done in Emoji - on stage, with Mark Rylance sending you his Richard III and Judi Dench doing a female emoji Lear.
Its a winner I tell you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 1, 2017 15:53:41 GMT
I see Daniel Kramer says his production was influenced by the HBO series Six Feet Under, which sort of says all you need to know about him. I was surprised to see he is artistic director of the ENO. Very - ahem - brave of a wildly dysfunctional organisation like that to appoint him to rescue them. Six Feet Under finished 12 years ago! He's down with the kids. Yes. And even then hardly any kids saw it because it was only on satellite. |
|
2,761 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on May 1, 2017 16:05:14 GMT
Six Feet Under finished 12 years ago! He's down with the kids. Yes. And even then hardly any kids saw it because it was only on satellite. Actually, it was on Channel 4. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 1, 2017 17:36:57 GMT
Yes. And even then hardly any kids saw it because it was only on satellite. Actually, it was on Channel 4. Yes. You are right. My mistake. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jul 2, 2017 18:47:26 GMT
well there certainly were young sections of the audience, lots of children, say about 8 upwards out there today, I don't question taking them, I'd hazard a guess this sort of approach might be more accessible for the young than some more traditional interpretations but I do wonder how much they could see standing in the yard.
My biggest gripe turned out not to be the use of loud music, mics, though I felt you lost a certain amount of dialogue as it was rather shouty and the beauty of some the text got swallowed, but I got used to it and whilst I don't want to see all my Shakespeare like that it was alright. Biggest issue was whatever idiot decided it would be a bright idea to pile giant fake flowers and floral tributes along nearly the whole of the front of the stage taking out the view of any groundling in the first few rows who was 6 foot plus. It said a lot for the production that I preserved it trying to watch peering between the foliage but honestly, I know they say every seat/space has some restricted views but that's plain stupid.
But ignoring that rather big but I quite liked this, turned out R and J wasn't as awful as I remembered from school and whilst I didn't really understand the thinking behind the whole clown thing or casting older actors but having them play young they did rather hook me. I'd have preferred less noise and less face paints but I did care what was going on and yes everyone in the audience seemed pretty invested by the final scene.
|
|
)
