|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 28, 2017 10:13:13 GMT
Director-run companies are a relatively modern innovation in theatrical history, actors-run companies used to be the norm from the days of the great actor managers back through the centuries. You could say Olivier's NT was one, and McKellen & Petherbridge ran companies, and very recently Sheffield theatres has gone with actors, and the Globe itself had Rylance. It is no big deal, the question is how good a producer the AD is, whether they can recruit good directors, actors and writers. There is no real reason a director should be better than an actor at doing that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 10:14:14 GMT
To get back on topic the appointment of Michelle Terry may herald a new sort of leadership that becomes more widespread and thus reduces the overall agendas of directors.The voice of the actor and the play may become,once more,paramount. snip Personally,Cant Wait. Good luck on finding a time machine to take you back to the nineteenth century! The lack of understanding of the role of a director from some quarters is quite astonishing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 10:20:11 GMT
Director-run companies are a relatively modern innovation in theatrical history, actors-run companies used to be the norm from the days of the great actor managers back through the centuries. You could say Olivier's NT was one, and McKellen & Petherbridge ran companies, and very recently Sheffield theatres has gone with actors, and the Globe itself had Rylance. It is no big deal, the question is how good a producer the AD is, whether they can recruit good directors, actors and writers. There is no real reason a director should be better than an actor at doing that. These were actors who became directors, or employed others to direct. Terry may well be a producing AD, a la David Lan, which would be a decent practical solution. On the other hand she may start to direct, although that's a massive risk that the Globe have taken, which would be rather unexpected, given the circumstances. We do have a number of companies that have performers doubling as directors but they tend to be the more cutting edge fringe companies. |
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jul 28, 2017 15:01:14 GMT
As I waited in my preferred Yard position for A Midsummer Night's Dream, an attractive young couple who were very into each other arrived just by, and I gradually edged a little away. We didn't speak, except that the woman said to me: "Oh, you have to stand bang in the centre, do you?" Half an hour into the play, the woman disentangled herself from the man and pushed through the crowd to the front of the stage. It was only then I realised she was Hermia (Anjana Vasan). Was the man she was with also one of the cast or did she seduce a different groundling at each performance? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2017 11:53:07 GMT
|
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 18, 2017 12:09:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2017 12:13:44 GMT
Oh good, back to straining to hear the poetry over the sound of nearby helicopters, I can hardly contain my joy.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by bee on Aug 18, 2017 12:58:40 GMT
Not a whole lot of detail in those interviews but I think she's probably off to a better start than Emma Rice managed with her "I'd rather listen to The Archers" from her first interview in the job. |
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Aug 20, 2017 6:14:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 21, 2017 8:45:36 GMT
I am not sure I agree with Terry's policy of parity of casting between make and female actors.
I am absolutely all for increasing opportunities for female actors in Jacobethan plays and have always worked to achieve a more balanced representation.
However working to an arbitrary 50-50 split seems unnecessary. Certainly on a play by play basis. It might be possible across a whole season with the new writing pieces are commissioned to be 70-80% female characters thus allowing more flexibility with the existing plays.
A rule for absolute parity risks requiring a lot of reconfiguring of texts to accommodate an arbitrary rule. Any changes to a Shakespeare or Jonson or similar play have to work with the relationships and structures of the piece.
For instance the Watermill production of Twelfth Night that is touring at present has a female Sir Toby and a female Antonio. Both of these casting choices seem to run against everything I know about the piece and disturb to complex web of relationships that are at the heart of this great play. Making such a radical shift in casting takes it away from being what Shakespeare could ever have envisaged.
On the other hand the RSC King John much loved and hated by members of this forum took two characters and created the Pippa Nixon Bastard which worked well within the play and the production.
Just because Shakespeare and his contemporaries are out of copyright and thus can be altered without needing to seek permission doesn't mean that it is always right to do so.
I absolutely want to see more women on the stage at the Globe but this should not be achieved by arbitrary rules but rather by adopting a more thoughtful and holistic approach. Bring back the all female ensemble from time to time. Commission all female new writing. Just don't rewrite plays to fit a rule that looks good in a headline but doesn't serve the texts or the audiences.
|
|
781 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Aug 21, 2017 8:55:39 GMT
oxfordsimon , good point, totally agree! But judging by the article it seems like Terry's talking not only about switching the gender of the charaters but also casting women in male roles which would keep the original gender of the charater ("Shakespeare didn't worry about gender - he had men playing women - so I don't know why we have to worry about it.") I believe Terry is too smart to overlook it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 9:13:38 GMT
I think Shakespeare should be played with, not because he's out of copyright and therefore there are no legal implications to doing so (though that does help), but because there's just so bloody much of it. I've said it before and I'll say it again - you don't like what one director has done with their production of, say, Twelfth Night? Hang in there, it'll be about three months before a different production comes along. Even Maria Aberg's divisive King John at the RSC took place mere months after the Union Theatre's production. If we don't play with our ideas and instead just keep things how they've been done before, things have the potential to get really boring and super repetitive really quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 10:38:24 GMT
The most recent season was 47% female, so this is just a continuation of current practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 21, 2017 11:03:13 GMT
oxfordsimon , good point, totally agree! But judging by the article it seems like Terry's talking not only about switching the gender of the charaters but also casting women in male roles which would keep the original gender of the charater ("Shakespeare didn't worry about gender - he had men playing women - so I don't know why we have to worry about it.") I believe Terry is too smart to overlook it. The line about Shakespeare having men playing women really has nothing to do with it. It was a legal restriction rather than an artistic choice on the part of the players. Shakespeare also had zero idea about the artificial concept of gender. This is absolutely a modern construct designed to force people into categories so that they can be labelled. Shakespeare can stand plenty of reimagining and 'messing' with. But to do so to meet arbitrary limits seems unnecessary and not geared towards producing the best possible shows. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 21, 2017 11:22:29 GMT
Shakespeare also had zero idea about the artificial concept of gender. This is absolutely a modern construct designed to force people into categories so that they can be labelled.] No, 'gender' was invented precisely to widen the categories, to distinguish between biological sex and socially-constructed behaviours so that the restriction of the latter to one sex or another can be questioned. It was a move away from biological determinism that we have all benefitted from hugely. It was never about labelling people, it was about labelling behaviour as socially constructed so that it could cross the borders of the existing biological categories. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 11:36:50 GMT
Bring back the all female ensemble from time to time. Commission all female new writing. Disagree. I want to go to theatres that reflect the fact that women are half of the human race and part of the world, not those that put them in an all-female ghetto. Gender blind casting works absolutely fine in every situation I've seen it, and for me it actually works better when they just take an approach of people playing people rather than trying to feminise or masculise (is that a word) a role traditionally played by the opposite gender. Of course everyone's different but I think the battle against gender and race blind casting has largely been lost and I'm delighted by that. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 21, 2017 12:54:39 GMT
Going to see a Shakespeare history play and expecting to reflect the world as it now is seems counterintuitive to me.
Those plays reflected the power structures and society of the time of writing as well as those being written about. We cannot wish away the truth that those times permitted little or no power to women of those below a certain social class.
You can absolutely use the texts as a springboard to explore the contrasts between then and now. But changing characters from male to female does have an impact on the structures and the relationships within the play. This does not mean it can't be done or it shouldn't be done. But it must be done with care.
If you are casting a female actor to play a male role as a man then that again needs to be handled with care.
With the Peake Hamlet, I found it poorly presented - at least in the broadcast version. There audiences weren't made aware of the idea that Peake was playing Hamlet as a trans character. Without that key bit of information, I was left very confused as to why someone who was presenting as a female was being addressed as a male. With the Polonia in that same production, it was much clearer as the text and presentation were brought into line with one another. As a result, I will found it very difficult to engage with the interpretation and thus the production as a whole.
Anything is possible with care and thought. And that is all I am asking for.
I think the earlier Globe experiments with all female ensembles (to balance the all male ensemble productions) are something that can be brought back. The success of the Donmar productions show that this approach is very viable in the right hands.
And encouraging new writing that gives the majority of the roles to women is surely a step towards redressing the imbalance that has existed throughout the Western drama. With strong new plays, female experience can be more fully explored and future generations can gifted a broader range of texts to explore.
A balanced approach is surely the best one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 21, 2017 13:13:58 GMT
"Across the season, the body of work will have equal amounts for male, female, it will be gender blind ......".
Imposing a 50/50 split is the exact opposite of gender blind casting - it is making gender a primary basis for casting. Gender blind means casting whoever is best for each part irrespective of gender. In the same way the current RSC Hamlet does not feature race-blind casting, it features casting based on race, white actors were not considered at all for the main roles. Not saying what she's doing is wrong but let's be clear it is a quota-based system based on gender.
|
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 21, 2017 14:19:44 GMT
There is a gender/race imbalance in theatre ( as in society as a whole when it comes to employment/organisations). Some organisation may not quite get it right, but I think they should at least try to address it
I find it hard to get too upset if Hamlet is played by a woman e.t.c. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work, and i'll watch the next one which will be along in 3 months. Might as well have a go at something different
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 21, 2017 14:25:08 GMT
There is a gender/race imbalance in theatre ( as in society as a whole when it comes to employment/organisations). Some organisation may not quite get it right, but I think they should at least try to address it I find it hard to get too upset if Hamlet is played by a woman e.t.c. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work, and i'll watch the next one which will be along in 3 months. Might as well have a go at something different Do something different only if you have something to say, a point to make, a new interpretation. Doing something different for the sake of being different is not good theatre-making. |
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 21, 2017 15:32:11 GMT
There is a gender/race imbalance in theatre ( as in society as a whole when it comes to employment/organisations). Some organisation may not quite get it right, but I think they should at least try to address it I find it hard to get too upset if Hamlet is played by a woman e.t.c. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work, and i'll watch the next one which will be along in 3 months. Might as well have a go at something different Do something different only if you have something to say, a point to make, a new interpretation. Doing something different for the sake of being different is not good theatre-making. Most the time its because they do have something they want to say. they may not succeed, but that's different! If Terry has an idea for a femal Othello or Hamlet, I'm sure there is a reason behind it other than gender balancing.
For example, the female malvelio in 12th night at the national earlier this year was superb.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 16:10:24 GMT
Going to see a Shakespeare history play and expecting to reflect the world as it now is seems counterintuitive to me. Those plays reflected the power structures and society of the time of writing as well as those being written about. We cannot wish away the truth that those times permitted little or no power to women of those below a certain social class. You can absolutely use the texts as a springboard to explore the contrasts between then and now. But changing characters from male to female does have an impact on the structures and the relationships within the play. This does not mean it can't be done or it shouldn't be done. But it must be done with care. If you are casting a female actor to play a male role as a man then that again needs to be handled with care. With the Peake Hamlet, I found it poorly presented - at least in the broadcast version. There audiences weren't made aware of the idea that Peake was playing Hamlet as a trans character. Without that key bit of information, I was left very confused as to why someone who was presenting as a female was being addressed as a male. With the Polonia in that same production, it was much clearer as the text and presentation were brought into line with one another. As a result, I will found it very difficult to engage with the interpretation and thus the production as a whole. Anything is possible with care and thought. And that is all I am asking for. I think the earlier Globe experiments with all female ensembles (to balance the all male ensemble productions) are something that can be brought back. The success of the Donmar productions show that this approach is very viable in the right hands. And encouraging new writing that gives the majority of the roles to women is surely a step towards redressing the imbalance that has existed throughout the Western drama. With strong new plays, female experience can be more fully explored and future generations can gifted a broader range of texts to explore. A balanced approach is surely the best one. Except Shakespeare is very often presented to talk about today's world. Random eg would be the NT's Timon of Athens which was totally about the world of now not the world of Shakespeare; it would have stuck out like a sore thumb if they had not changed some of the genders and present a wholly male world of business and politics. I guess it's a sign of everyone responding to things differently, which is one of the things that makes this board interesting. For eg, I have no prob whatsoever with the Maxine Peake Hamlet - it didn't occur to me to ask whether she was 'meant' to be a man or a woman, it's not the most interesting thing about the character for me. In the same way, I don't find it jarring if people of completely different ethnicities are cast as brother and sister, whereas other people find that completely distracting. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 21, 2017 17:13:25 GMT
abby - whilst I can appreciate where you are coming from, I find it deeply frustrating when productions set up situations or relationships which require further explanation to understand where the director was coming from. What happens on the stage should be sufficient in and of itself to allow audiences to comprehend the world and content of the play.
If you ask questions of an audience and don't give them the tools or information to answer those questions then I would argue that the production has failed.
I do find siblings of different ethnicities to be distracting if you see them in the context of their wider family. I might be old fashioned but I like the visuals of a play to make sense with the text. If you set the two at odds, you need to make it clear why.
I have seen productions where it worked and some where it has just taking me out of the world of the play and been a source of frustration.
Some would argue that I should look beyond the colour of the skin of the actor, but I see someone's ethnicity as part of their identity and to ignore that seems wrong to me. Skin colour does not define you but it is still part of who you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Aug 21, 2017 17:23:20 GMT
I think a lot of the gender-blind and race-blind casting that goes on is to deflect attention from the fact the AD's and directors doing it are overwhelmingly white middle-aged middle-class men.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 21, 2017 18:40:57 GMT
I think a lot of the gender-blind and race-blind casting that goes on is to deflect attention from the fact the AD's and directors doing it are overwhelmingly white middle-aged middle-class men. Well, there is certainly pressure for white middle-aged middle-class men to practice diverse casting. And really, what else can they do? They can't change their race or their age or their class. Changing their gender would be overkill, surely. Other than turning down work - with no guarantee that the person who does take the job won't be just as white, middle-aged, middle class and male as they are - casting is the only immediate impact they can have. Real diversity requires structural change. It's very hard for individuals to effect than kind of change. |
|
