|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 11:02:49 GMT
On the above- and if someone is saying it then it really was going to be me wasn't it-firstly Angels as an 'anniversary' production, with that cast and as Elliot's farewell to the NT is a pretty big deal, and didn't do them any harm in a sales sense. A Broadway transfer for Angels, a genuine lock stock transfer rather than a re-cast sort of version is no mean feat. This is selling back the Americans one of their biggest own exports. Artistically, as long as it works (and I think we can be pretty sure it will or the producers let alone Kushner wouldn't have gone for it) is a pretty big artistic benchmark for his time.*
I think we also forget that the NT's remit, and therefore his remit as AD is beyond just being a 'hit factory' it's about the NT Studio- the benefits of what they're working on now aren't reaped for years sometimes, it's about the education remit and about the classic repertoire remit.
And on top of all of that, you can do everything in your power as AD but you can't always predict what will happen when something gets on stage- sometimes the best of things on paper go to sh*t, and the worst looking things are a hit. You also can't predict what people will like, because audiences frankly are right bastards when it comes down to it.
*I will have to be a pedant and say it was Hytner who signed off on Angels and Norris inherited it in a way...but he COULD in theory have nixed it and told them all to go on their merry way. Obviously he's sensible enough not to.
|
|
751 posts
|
Post by horton on Sept 14, 2017 11:18:47 GMT
I think the kind of knife-sharpening is typical of people who just crave novelty- "give us the next piece of news".
The thing I really like about the National is that it is noticeably more open to experiment and not afraid of taking risks. There is still some distance to go in reaching out to the regions more, but I guess we can't have everything all at once.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 14, 2017 11:34:18 GMT
it hardly emphasised the gay aspects of the play at all It did! I saw it a couple of times and went to the discussion, where they said there were walk outs pretty well every night (we witnessed one). I've got the review cuttings somewhere, one of them from one of the broadsheets (Times, maybe), dripping with distaste for the subject matter. I'm not disputing the play has gay themes which caused offence to some, just that that particular production didn't emphasise them or make them explicit compared with productions of it a decade before (McKellen) or even a decade after (Simon Russell-Beale). Hytner may have been bold in staging the play in the first place but that's all. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 14, 2017 11:40:30 GMT
Success seems to depend less on the AD as a person and who they have in their pockets. Lord knows even I could be a decent AD if I had regular access to the likes of Mike Bartlett, James Graham, and Robert Icke, or Alan Bennett, Richard Bean, and Marianne Elliott. Rufus is making a good go of a working relationship with Ivo van Hove, but it's by no means exclusive and it seems you need playwrights just as much as you need directors if not more so. The thing is the next Mike Bartlett or Alan Bennett might be in the NT studio working on their break-out hit right now. Any of the new writers whose work underwhelmed in the Dorfman might have learnt from that experience how to write their masterpiece. No-one is an instant genius. If you want truly new talent to come through it has to be nurtured, and given opportunities to develop and to fail. Surely that's part of the NT's remit? |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 14, 2017 11:40:57 GMT
I think the kind of knife-sharpening is typical of people who just crave novelty- "give us the next piece of news". The thing I really like about the National is that it is noticeably more open to experiment and not afraid of taking risks. There is still some distance to go in reaching out to the regions more, but I guess we can't have everything all at once. So you don't approve of people who crave novelty but you do like the NT being open to experiment. Aren't those the same thing ? I'm not sure it's open to experiment at all actually, the programming is much more narrow than under previous regimes with one complete part of the repertoire (lesser-known classics) entirely eliminated. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 14, 2017 11:44:15 GMT
Success seems to depend less on the AD as a person and who they have in their pockets. Lord knows even I could be a decent AD if I had regular access to the likes of Mike Bartlett, James Graham, and Robert Icke, or Alan Bennett, Richard Bean, and Marianne Elliott. Rufus is making a good go of a working relationship with Ivo van Hove, but it's by no means exclusive and it seems you need playwrights just as much as you need directors if not more so. The thing is the next Mike Bartlett or Alan Bennett might be in the NT studio working on their break-out hit right now. Any of the new writers whose work underwhelmed in the Dorfman might have learnt from that experience how to write their masterpiece. No-one is an instant genius. If you want truly new talent to come through it has to be nurtured, and given opportunities to develop and to fail. Surely that's part of the NT's remit? Being given an opportunity to fail on the Olivier stage could be a career ender. Interesting to see Goold say the Almeida has 4 or 5 musicals under development, I wonder how many plays in total these places have under development at any one time - obviously a key talent for the AD is to correctly choose the few that make it onto the stage. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 14, 2017 11:46:33 GMT
The thing is the next Mike Bartlett or Alan Bennett might be in the NT studio working on their break-out hit right now. Any of the new writers whose work underwhelmed in the Dorfman might have learnt from that experience how to write their masterpiece. No-one is an instant genius. If you want truly new talent to come through it has to be nurtured, and given opportunities to develop and to fail. Surely that's part of the NT's remit? Being given an opportunity to fail on the Olivier stage could be a career ender. I imagine that's why the new writers are going in to the Dorfman, instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 11:49:35 GMT
Success seems to depend less on the AD as a person and who they have in their pockets. Lord knows even I could be a decent AD if I had regular access to the likes of Mike Bartlett, James Graham, and Robert Icke, or Alan Bennett, Richard Bean, and Marianne Elliott. Rufus is making a good go of a working relationship with Ivo van Hove, but it's by no means exclusive and it seems you need playwrights just as much as you need directors if not more so. The thing is the next Mike Bartlett or Alan Bennett might be in the NT studio working on their break-out hit right now. Any of the new writers whose work underwhelmed in the Dorfman might have learnt from that experience how to write their masterpiece. No-one is an instant genius. If you want truly new talent to come through it has to be nurtured, and given opportunities to develop and to fail. Surely that's part of the NT's remit? Exactly that. The studio is constantly reading new works- from their team of readers literally just reading, to those who are having readings/workshops. Some of those are progression to the Dorfman, some are being told 'come back in 6 months with a re-write and we'll talk again' and some are being told 'Not this time but send us your next play'. None of them knows which one might end up being the next big thing at this stage and and it might be the next AD or the next after that who actually gets the new James Graham or whoever. Likewise directors- every production in there has an AD or two working with the 'big name' we don't know yet who of them is going to be the next whoever either. It's all a bit of a waiting game and a fair bit of luck. On paper as well a lot of the 'big things' shouldn't have worked: Puppet horses in WW1 anyone? and things that look like a decent bet: Salome anyone? fall flat. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 14, 2017 12:34:25 GMT
The thing is the next Mike Bartlett or Alan Bennett might be in the NT studio working on their break-out hit right now. Any of the new writers whose work underwhelmed in the Dorfman might have learnt from that experience how to write their masterpiece. No-one is an instant genius. If you want truly new talent to come through it has to be nurtured, and given opportunities to develop and to fail. Surely that's part of the NT's remit? On paper as well a lot of the 'big things' shouldn't have worked: Puppet horses in WW1 anyone? I love Hytner's description in his book of the very first workshops they had for War Horse - basically a couple of actors with boxes on their heads being led around the room by another actor - and how he imagines some of the 'enemies of subsidised theatre' might have reacted to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 12:40:44 GMT
On paper as well a lot of the 'big things' shouldn't have worked: Puppet horses in WW1 anyone? I love Hytner's description in his book of the very first workshops they had for War Horse - basically a couple of actors with boxes on their heads being led around the room by another actor - and how he imagines some of the 'enemies of subsidised theatre' might have reacted to it. haha that is glorious! I actually love War Horse simply for it's audacity to be SO ridiculous an idea that should never have worked. 'Yeah so we're going to have like horses on stage, but they're like puppets...oh and there's a goose' I know I've told you this story before but War Horse was possibly one of the biggest arguments I had with my PhD supervisor (and that's saying something) because I put it in a list of 'innovative and risk taking works' by the NT. Having only read the book, and as ever not having the first clue about theatre she insisted that there was nothing 'innovative' about it. I forget the specifics but I think somewhere it ended with me saying 'BUT THE HORSES ARE PUPPETS' or similar. But in all seriousness nobody in the commercial sector, and I don't think anyone but the NT would have had the resources or frankly the artistic scope (and potential to hang themselves with) to pull that off. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 13:19:51 GMT
I forget the specifics but I think somewhere it ended with me saying 'BUT THE HORSES ARE PUPPETS' or similar. Are you quite sure that was you? Or was it Brian Conley? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 13:21:22 GMT
I forget the specifics but I think somewhere it ended with me saying 'BUT THE HORSES ARE PUPPETS' or similar. Are you quite sure that was you? Or was it Brian Conley? You can see me on Strictly in a couple of weeks. And the puppet. Though now I'm wishing the War Horse footnotes just read 'It's a puppet' and nothing more. Just to see if anyone noticed. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 14, 2017 13:59:53 GMT
I love Hytner's description in his book of the very first workshops they had for War Horse - basically a couple of actors with boxes on their heads being led around the room by another actor - and how he imagines some of the 'enemies of subsidised theatre' might have reacted to it. haha that is glorious! I actually love War Horse simply for it's audacity to be SO ridiculous an idea that should never have worked. 'Yeah so we're going to have like horses on stage, but they're like puppets...oh and there's a goose' I know I've told you this story before but War Horse was possibly one of the biggest arguments I had with my PhD supervisor (and that's saying something) because I put it in a list of 'innovative and risk taking works' by the NT. Having only read the book, and as ever not having the first clue about theatre she insisted that there was nothing 'innovative' about it. I forget the specifics but I think somewhere it ended with me saying 'BUT THE HORSES ARE PUPPETS' or similar. But in all seriousness nobody in the commercial sector, and I don't think anyone but the NT would have had the resources or frankly the artistic scope (and potential to hang themselves with) to pull that off. But it wasn't that innovative, I saw a full-sized horse represented by a puppet in a Shakespeare production 30 years prior to that, and it was such a famous production that I'm sure the NT creatives would have seen it. Anyone like to guess ? Just incidentally, one of the best NT productions ever, also 30 years before, was Strider the Story of a Horse with the horses quite brilliantly played by actors. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 15:12:29 GMT
haha that is glorious! I actually love War Horse simply for it's audacity to be SO ridiculous an idea that should never have worked. 'Yeah so we're going to have like horses on stage, but they're like puppets...oh and there's a goose' I know I've told you this story before but War Horse was possibly one of the biggest arguments I had with my PhD supervisor (and that's saying something) because I put it in a list of 'innovative and risk taking works' by the NT. Having only read the book, and as ever not having the first clue about theatre she insisted that there was nothing 'innovative' about it. I forget the specifics but I think somewhere it ended with me saying 'BUT THE HORSES ARE PUPPETS' or similar. But in all seriousness nobody in the commercial sector, and I don't think anyone but the NT would have had the resources or frankly the artistic scope (and potential to hang themselves with) to pull that off. But it wasn't that innovative, I saw a full-sized horse represented by a puppet in a Shakespeare production 30 years prior to that, and it was such a famous production that I'm sure the NT creatives would have seen it. Anyone like to guess ? Just incidentally, one of the best NT productions ever, also 30 years before, was Strider the Story of a Horse with the horses quite brilliantly played by actors. Are you actually my evil PhD supervisor in disguise? The amount of nit-picking you do I wouldn't be surprised. The key to what I said above was it was PART OF A LIST the rest of which I frankly can't be arsed to drag out now, but was part of a larger point about when/where the NT has taken risks. I concede I wasn't aware of that production, that you cite. But in the scheme of things I stand by my point that War Horse was a riskier endeavour than yet another Lear or Pinter. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 15:39:55 GMT
haha that is glorious! I actually love War Horse simply for it's audacity to be SO ridiculous an idea that should never have worked. 'Yeah so we're going to have like horses on stage, but they're like puppets...oh and there's a goose' I know I've told you this story before but War Horse was possibly one of the biggest arguments I had with my PhD supervisor (and that's saying something) because I put it in a list of 'innovative and risk taking works' by the NT. Having only read the book, and as ever not having the first clue about theatre she insisted that there was nothing 'innovative' about it. I forget the specifics but I think somewhere it ended with me saying 'BUT THE HORSES ARE PUPPETS' or similar. But in all seriousness nobody in the commercial sector, and I don't think anyone but the NT would have had the resources or frankly the artistic scope (and potential to hang themselves with) to pull that off. But it wasn't that innovative, I saw a full-sized horse represented by a puppet in a Shakespeare production 30 years prior to that, and it was such a famous production that I'm sure the NT creatives would have seen it. Anyone like to guess ? Just incidentally, one of the best NT productions ever, also 30 years before, was Strider the Story of a Horse with the horses quite brilliantly played by actors. Well, if you want to be really pedantic, of course there's nothing new under the sun and every sodding thing has been done before in one way or another. That doesn't mean War Horse wasn't a brave, innovative bit of work that could have been disastrous and that can reasonably be described as taking an original approach to translating the book into theatre. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 16:25:23 GMT
I'm greatly amused that this thread managed to create a mini twitter war between an academic who is so up her own arse it must be painful and 3 of us from this forum. Said academic declared War Horse was the 'worst thing' she'd ever seen in a theatre and the 3 of us proceeded to school her in just how fortunate she was if that was the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 16:31:41 GMT
I mean, Henry Ford didn't invent the wheel either, but he didn't half make it go round.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 14, 2017 16:38:40 GMT
But it wasn't that innovative, I saw a full-sized horse represented by a puppet in a Shakespeare production 30 years prior to that, and it was such a famous production that I'm sure the NT creatives would have seen it. Anyone like to guess ? Just incidentally, one of the best NT productions ever, also 30 years before, was Strider the Story of a Horse with the horses quite brilliantly played by actors. Are you actually my evil PhD supervisor in disguise? The amount of nit-picking you do I wouldn't be surprised. The key to what I said above was it was PART OF A LIST the rest of which I frankly can't be arsed to drag out now, but was part of a larger point about when/where the NT has taken risks. I concede I wasn't aware of that production, that you cite. But in the scheme of things I stand by my point that War Horse was a riskier endeavour than yet another Lear or Pinter. When I did my PhD the first part of it was to a literature review of what had been done previously. Anyway, all I'm saying is that the idea of representing a full-sized horse on stage via a puppet wasn't itself totally ridiculous and audacious to me because I'd seen it done before, in a production that was hugely influential in British theatre in terms of staging and design - you can still see its influence today. If you see that as nit-picking rather than pointing out something vaguely interesting then that is OK. Not sure when the NT has really taken a big risk - the Hall production of Oresteia using masks maybe. War Horse probably. Romans in Britain. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 16:41:35 GMT
Are you actually my evil PhD supervisor in disguise? The amount of nit-picking you do I wouldn't be surprised. The key to what I said above was it was PART OF A LIST the rest of which I frankly can't be arsed to drag out now, but was part of a larger point about when/where the NT has taken risks. I concede I wasn't aware of that production, that you cite. But in the scheme of things I stand by my point that War Horse was a riskier endeavour than yet another Lear or Pinter. When I did my PhD the first part of it was to a literature review of what had been done previously. Anyway, all I'm saying is that the idea of representing a full-sized horse on stage via a puppet wasn't itself totally ridiculous and audacious to me because I'd seen it done before, in a production that was hugely influential in British theatre in terms of staging and design - you can still see its influence today. If you see that as nit-picking rather than pointing out something vaguely interesting then that is OK. OOOOH I'm being told how to do a PhD as well now. Yes, I did an extensive literature review, but as my PhD wasn't on War Horse it didn't feature extensive reading on 'horses of the stage' instead War Horse was used as one of several examples in a relatively minor point. I shared that story as a mildly amusing anecdote given it was relevant to the conversation. I do think your points about the other horse-related puppets are in fact interesting. But unfortunately as with many of your posts it isn't what you said but the unfortunate manner in which you choose to approach sharing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 14, 2017 16:49:37 GMT
When I did my PhD the first part of it was to a literature review of what had been done previously. Anyway, all I'm saying is that the idea of representing a full-sized horse on stage via a puppet wasn't itself totally ridiculous and audacious to me because I'd seen it done before, in a production that was hugely influential in British theatre in terms of staging and design - you can still see its influence today. If you see that as nit-picking rather than pointing out something vaguely interesting then that is OK. OOOOH I'm being told how to do a PhD as well now. Yes, I did an extensive literature review, but as my PhD wasn't on War Horse it didn't feature extensive reading on 'horses of the stage' instead War Horse was used as one of several examples in a relatively minor point. I shared that story as a mildly amusing anecdote given it was relevant to the conversation. I do think your points about the other horse-related puppets are in fact interesting. But unfortunately as with many of your posts it isn't what you said but the unfortunate manner in which you choose to approach sharing it. At least I didn't put *rolls eyes* at the end, you've got to concede that. |
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Sept 14, 2017 17:22:12 GMT
OOOOH I'm being told how to do a PhD as well now. Yes, I did an extensive literature review, but as my PhD wasn't on War Horse it didn't feature extensive reading on 'horses of the stage' instead War Horse was used as one of several examples in a relatively minor point. I shared that story as a mildly amusing anecdote given it was relevant to the conversation. I do think your points about the other horse-related puppets are in fact interesting. But unfortunately as with many of your posts it isn't what you said but the unfortunate manner in which you choose to approach sharing it. At least I didn't put *rolls eyes* at the end, you've got to concede that. Been trying what that production was, can i have clue? Oh and how come you are a Doctor now?🙈 |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 14, 2017 17:22:50 GMT
So Dr J, what is your special subject?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 14, 2017 17:37:15 GMT
At least I didn't put *rolls eyes* at the end, you've got to concede that. Been trying what that production was, can i have clue? Oh and how come you are a Doctor now?🙈 I've always been a Dr (Imperial College) but I didn't want to intimidate you Marty. The Ninagawa Macbeth. If you pop over to the Barbican for the revival I assume it's still in it, just briefly. |
|
1,119 posts
|
Post by martin1965 on Sept 14, 2017 19:19:22 GMT
Been trying what that production was, can i have clue? Oh and how come you are a Doctor now?🙈 I've always been a Dr (Imperial College) but I didn't want to intimidate you Marty. The Ninagawa Macbeth. If you pop over to the Barbican for the revival I assume it's still in it, just briefly. Rolls eyes |
|
751 posts
|
Post by horton on Sept 14, 2017 20:08:52 GMT
To Dr Jan Brock:
Yes I think there is a distinct difference between novelty and innovation.
I agree that there has been a failure to explore the full breadth of historical drama, but I have seen first-hand that the management is now much more open to outside approaches than in the Hytner/ Star era.
|
|
