3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 2, 2017 23:04:45 GMT
To avoid going further off-topic in another thread about an individual play, I'll continue here.
I've previously commented on the fact that when Rupert Goold took over as AD at the Almeida - a theatre where I'd long been a regular - the programming appeared to me to go sharply downhill to the extent that after a series of disappointments, I stopped going altogether and am only now cautiously returning for a few productions. I've found the same with the Orange Tree since Paul Miller took over, albeit to a lesser extent as though one person here has commented that he is still playing safely, I think he's changing as much as he dare, as fast as possible, and that within a year or two the programming will be nothing like it was in Sam Walter's day - when I was even more of a regular than at the Almeida. At the Orange Tree I think Paul Miller is mixing up his tweaks, as sometimes they're apparent in advance, e.g. programming new plays of the type which would never have been seen there before - An Octoroon and Pomona, for instance - but in other cases not, such as introducing colourblind casting.
At other theatres, however, a change of AD seems to have no effect whatsoever on the programming, unless I'm simply unaware of it. For instance, Daniel Evans's first season at CFT has looked very much like the mixture as before and I've carried on attending as much as ever. What do others think?
|
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 2, 2017 23:25:33 GMT
I found this when David Poutney took over WNO. Previously I'd seen the majority of WNO's output 2004-12, first when I was at uni in Bristol & then returning for each WNO season. Since then I've only seen two WNO productions. The reason is not so much me not liking the operas Poutney has programmed as me not liking the more regie production style he has brought in. The two operas I did see this autumn were both revivals of productions that originated before he took over & were traditional stagings.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2017 23:31:49 GMT
Objectively, each artistic director has their own artistic policy, constrained by the theatre's Board and by the various particular circumstances of their company.
Objectively, the Almeida didn't go downhill - in fact, quite the opposite - but may have been more to the taste of certain people before the change.
Chichester must retain the majority of its existing audience because of its large capacity and relatively remote geographical location. Whereas the Almeida and the Orange Tree are both much smaller houses and with far larger catchment area audiences, so both offer much more scope for refocusing their programmes.
EDIT: Arguably, in his first year, Daniel Evans has focused more on serving the home audience base and less on the prospect of transfers out. Probably to ensure that the old home audience quickly retains confidence in CFT, so that there's a secure base from which to start to explore the borders of their taste in future years.
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 3, 2017 7:12:39 GMT
Good points and well-made, HG - I like your use of the word "refocusing" in relation to CFT, though the implications are ominous for some. And I have indeed acknowledged, here and elsewhere, that all audience responses to programming are matters of taste, though I find it interesting that in the case of the Almeida, there seems this year to have been a slight shift back towards more traditional choices. But could be simply my interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2017 8:23:26 GMT
Of course the Almeida was originally, under Pierre Audi, one of the very very few UK producers and presenters of contemporary international theatre, music and opera. The transition from Pierre Audi to Ian McDiarmid and Jonathan Kent was far more radical than any subsequent change of its AD.
|
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Dec 3, 2017 10:46:20 GMT
I'm reading The National Theatre Story right now which is very interesting about the various AD transitions.
I don't think it makes any difference to me - I look for the quality of the production, writer, actors etc. The AD can influence that to a greater or lesser degree but I'm not sure a general audience member would notice.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Dec 3, 2017 11:05:30 GMT
It makes a significant difference to me. I barely went to the Almeida when it was run by Michael Attenborough, but it's been very different since Rupert Goold took over. The same is true of the Orange Tree since Paul Miller replaced Sam Walters. I guess it's not specifically the change of AD, but the change of approach and repertoire that results from the change of AD.
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 3, 2017 15:50:01 GMT
I didn't start going to the Almeida until 1993,, when Ian McDiarmid and Jonathan Kent had already taken over, but I remained a regular throughout their time and that of Michael Attenborough, who succeeded them; it wasn't until Rupert Goold took over that I noticed a marked - and to me negative - change of direction, which neatly proves dani's point about the AD and the approach not always amounting to the same thing. Similarly, I've carried on going to the Tricycle regardless of the switch from Nicholas Kent to Indhu Rubasingham. On the other hand, I had also been a regular at the old Hampstead Theatre and noticed a marked deterioration when the new building opened and Anthony Clark took over from Jenny Topper as AD; only when Edward Hall in turn took charge did things seem to pick up again.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Dec 3, 2017 16:30:57 GMT
I completely agree about Hampstead, and while we are of different opinions about the Almeida I can clearly see how someone who'd been a fan of the Attenborough regime could dislike a lot of what Goold has been doing. There are theatres I'm going to persist with regardless of who's at the helm, but there are definitely theatres where a change of AD has completely altered my relationship with the place. A case in point would be the Royal Court. I respect what Vicki Featherstone is aiming to do there, but I've had a patchy experience with the results. She may be more of a theatre visionary than Dominic Cook, but I prefer Cook as a director and I preferred the programming on his watch.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Dec 3, 2017 16:36:45 GMT
Apparently it's Cooke. I am slightly embarrassed that I have never noticed this, but rather than editing my previous post I thought I would add another one. There are theatre names I'm extra careful to spell right because they're so easy to get wrong, but then I go and get an easy one wrong. I still don't know how to pronounce Ivo van Hove. I can do the "van" bit alright.
|
|
4,805 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Mark on Dec 3, 2017 17:38:23 GMT
For me, the Donmar programming lost a lot of appeal when Grandage left. Have only seen a few productions under Rourke (Limehouse, City of Angels and Comittee).
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 3, 2017 19:01:28 GMT
I still don't know how to pronounce Ivo van Hove. I can do the "van" bit alright. I heard this said on R4's Saturday Review recently (quite a good way to discover the official pronunciation of names, if only you can then remember it), and had hitherto assumed it was like Ivor without the "r", but they were saying it more like "Eevo". However, given what I've read about his work, it's not a name I'll need to bandy about - though I am seeing Network idc, which will be the first time I''ll have seen anything Ivo van Howe has directed.
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 3, 2017 19:06:12 GMT
For me, the Donmar programming lost a lot of appeal when Grandage left. Have only seen a few productions under Rourke (Limehouse, City of Angels and Comittee). I agree with this, too: I've seen fewer productions since Josie Rourke took over but even if I like the sound of them, the reviews have sometimes proved discouraging. As I only ever book via Front Row/Klaxon, I can't say it has affected the method by which I book; only the frequency. The Bush in contrast is largely just as appealing under Madani Younis as it was under Dominic Dromgoole and then Josie Rourke. So the latter presumably has a quite different programming policy at her current home.
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Dec 3, 2017 21:12:44 GMT
I never went to the Orange Tree till Paul took over so I can't comment on how it's changed, but for my money he's doing some of the most radical and challenging work in London (Pomona and An Octoroon could give anything at the Court a run for their money). He really has put the Orange Tree on the map.
I love Josie Rourke as a person and as a director and I prefer her productions than Grandage's, but the Donmar feels soulless and focused on making money now. I never go to the Donmar anymore unless I know someone in it, because I feel so unwelcome and uncomfortable there.
I love how everyone is conspicuously not mentioning the Globe.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2017 23:51:24 GMT
Pomona (play and production) was developed at the Royal Court.
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Dec 4, 2017 1:13:07 GMT
Pomona (play and production) was developed at the Royal Court. Well, kind of. It was developed by the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama and was performed in Cardiff and at the Gate as part of a student showcase. The Court collaborated in supporting the development of the RWCMD showcase plays but Pomona's first professional production was at the Orange Tree. Certainly it's considered an Orange Tree play.
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 4, 2017 4:12:56 GMT
I honestly hadn't even thought of the Globe, samuelwhiskers, as I go there so rarely (once a year max as it's so hard to fit in a trip if you've little time to travel between venues), so even if it had occurred to me, I wouldn't be qualified to comment. But now that you've mentioned it, I recall all the recent fuss and am sure others here would be able to comment. Of course we're still waiting to see what happens under Michelle Terry's leadership.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 4, 2017 8:03:25 GMT
For me, the Donmar programming lost a lot of appeal when Grandage left. Have only seen a few productions under Rourke (Limehouse, City of Angels and Comittee). Not sure the Donmar programming changed as much as the quality. The Almeida programming changed with each of the four AD regimes but it has still attracted exactly the same type of audience (me for example) so it can't have changed that much. Personally I find Goold a big improvement on Attenborough. My problem with the Orange Tree is that previously its programming was very distinctive and niche but now it has been changed to be virtually the same as any other similar London theatre, for example it used to be totally different programming to The Gate but now it is almost the same.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 8:58:44 GMT
I mean, yes and no. I have my theatres I like to go to, and my loyalty to them is based on a combination of programming and price. It's always worth gambling on the Almeida or the Young Vic, say, because £10 tickets are so readily available, so my attendance at the former hasn't really been affected by the change of AD, and I don't expect my attendance of the latter will when David Lan leaves. I have found my interest in certain companies waning after a change of AD, but that's less "I love Michael Boyd and think Greg Doran is trash" and more "I have found shows under Doran's regime less rewarding than those I saw under Boyd's regime so I'm less likely to make the drive up the M40". Any change in my behaviour has been led by the art, not by the artist.
As for the Globe, yes, people have definitely refused flatly to go because of the AD, but again, if you question them, they'll probably point out that it's not because of Emma Rice *specifically* but because of what Emma Rice has allowed artistically to happen to the building (there was some initial concern about Rice's thoughts on Shakespeare, but I reckon most non-fans will, if questioned, start shouting about the lighting rig before you even finish asking your question). Although these people have been SO rude about Emma Rice, creating such a horrendously negative atmosphere around the entire building, that I'm honestly disappointed that they'll probably all come flooding back once Michelle Terry gets the keys.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 10:56:25 GMT
Not particularly. I wouldn't know most of the Artistic Directors in London's glitzy West End if they came up to me in the street and beat me around the face with the latest edition of 'The Stage' shouting "I'm an Artistic Director dammit!".
Obviously not Rufus Norris of course. I know him mostly through legal letters due to his threatening tone as a result of me being the hot favourite to take over from him when he gets the push. He's very touchy about it.
Oh and Josie Rourke but that's only because I'm currently slavishly devoted to her thanks to her upcoming hottie-heavy programming at the Donmar.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 11:01:50 GMT
I wouldn't know most of the Artistic Directors in London's glitzy West End if they came up to me in the street and beat me around the face with the latest edition of 'The Stage' shouting "I'm an Artistiic Director dammit!". That's because there aren't any.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 11:18:55 GMT
I wouldn't know most of the Artistic Directors in London's glitzy West End if they came up to me in the street and beat me around the face with the latest edition of 'The Stage' shouting "I'm an Artistiic Director dammit!". That's because there aren't any. And that would be why I wouldn't know 'em.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 11:19:35 GMT
My problem with the Orange Tree is that previously its programming was very distinctive and niche but now it has been changed to be virtually the same as any other similar London theatre, for example it used to be totally different programming to The Gate but now it is almost the same. There are certainly overlaps now that the Orange Tree programme is so much more eclectic than previously and that the Orange Tree collaborates with so much of the wider theatre ecology whereas it earlier operated in splendid isolation. The biggest overlap is in the international strand of the Orange Tree because the Gate is primarily an international theatre. But the Gate productions are usually made by emerging creatives whereas the recent Orange Tree international plays have been directed by their AD and in co-production with the established ATC. It's true that Gate writers and creatives do now also work at the Orange Tree, and this is appropriate because of the scale and physical nature of the two venues. The Gate is intimate and the Orange Tree is also small but can play very big, as instanced by sharing productions (Pomona, The Rolling Stone) with the relatively vast and epic Royal Exchange. Also, the Orange Tree has become the occasional ideal London home for Paines Plough's Roundabout shows. And the classic revivals (Misalliance, Sheppey, French without Tears) still regularly occur.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 4, 2017 14:11:06 GMT
My problem with the Orange Tree is that previously its programming was very distinctive and niche but now it has been changed to be virtually the same as any other similar London theatre, for example it used to be totally different programming to The Gate but now it is almost the same. There are certainly overlaps now that the Orange Tree programme is so much more eclectic than previously and that the Orange Tree collaborates with so much of the wider theatre ecology whereas it earlier operated in splendid isolation. The biggest overlap is in the international strand of the Orange Tree because the Gate is primarily an international theatre. But the Gate productions are usually made by emerging creatives whereas the recent Orange Tree international plays have been directed by their AD and in co-production with the established ATC. It's true that Gate writers and creatives do now also work at the Orange Tree, and this is appropriate because of the scale and physical nature of the two venues. The Gate is intimate and the Orange Tree is also small but can play very big, as instanced by sharing productions (Pomona, The Rolling Stone) with the relatively vast and epic Royal Exchange. Also, the Orange Tree has become the occasional ideal London home for Paines Plough's Roundabout shows. And the classic revivals (Misalliance, Sheppey, French without Tears) still regularly occur. The Octoroon is an example of what I meant - several London theatres were in competition (or at least tried) to get the UK rights to stage it (including Hytner when at NT), if the Orange Tree hadn't done it somewhere else in London would have - formerly the Orange Tree was the ONLY place in London you could have seen certain types of play, hence the new AD has reduced the diversity of the London theatre in general.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 14:24:57 GMT
Well, Arts Council England removed the Orange Tree from its National Portfolio so clearly its former policy had relatively low priority. The unfunded fringe in London continues to revive forgotten plays, perhaps in part because their unfamiliarity may get press attention. For example, Michael Billington is regularly wheeled out to such fringe revivals.
|
|