Macbeth ( NT 2018)

A strong straightforward easy to understand production Perfectly acceptable.

Rufus Norris thinks he got it right - long interview in The Times today (paywall)
www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/rufus-norris-interview-a-school-without-five-minutes-of-arts-can-get-a-good-ofsted-rating-sktrmxgnd

Upbeat interview in general - he is enjoying the job and would like a second term.

"It’s not nice to be hammered or traduced or whatever way you put it. It’s interesting, actually. There’s sort of two experiences. There’s the experience of getting hammered for something and you quietly think they’re sort of right — there’s something about it that isn’t quite right. And then there’s the other one where you go, ‘Actually, I really stand by this piece of work’. And that’s painful in a very different way.”

He puts Macbeth in the latter category- of course - but if Common and Salome, referred to before this quote, are in the former, why on earth didn't he DO something!

When I was at school, theatre trips were paid for by parents. That is part of how I discovered a love of theatre.

When it was decided that schools needed to pay for such trips, it was inevitable that far fewer trips would take place.

I was lucky to have been taught how to read music at primary school - the headteacher did that himself every year. I was the wrong year to do the school production of Joseph - it was only done every other year. I did do all the nativity plays - progressing from myrrh through to gold in three successive years.

Once at upper school, there was one teacher in the English department who decided to do a school play - and decided on Our Town for the first effort and then Waiting for Godot the following year.

Drama wasn't part of the curriculum - but we did had shows and theatre trips. Music was part of the curriculum - but we didn't have a school band or choir.

I developed a massive love of theatre and music without it being part of my formal education. I certainly didn't get anything from the half-arsed TIE stuff that would be trotted out to make us aware of 'issues'.

I don't believe that formal arts education is absolutely necessary in schools. The best experiences for me came from having teachers who are passionate about theatre or music and who then inspire through extra curricular activities. Also having parents who had a love of theatre and literature is where the groundwork was laid.

I don't believe you can teach 'culture' - but you can foster a love of it. Let schools return to being allowed to arrange theatre trips that parents can pay for. Yes, that might exclude some on the grounds of costs - but then schools should be able to access 'access funds'. Expecting schools to fund all trips directly is why far few opportunities to go to see theatre exist.

We aren't seeing any shortage of people wanting to enter the theatre profession. So any changes to the arts provision isn't impacting on the desire of young people to try their hand at acting/singing/dancing for a living.

From my anecdotal experience, there doesn't appear to be a shortage of school productions. My niece was cast in the school production of Hairspray last year, my housemate directs the annual school panto (as well as being involved in the House drama, dance and music competitions) and another friend is assistant directing the school production of Aladdin at the moment. All of these are state schools in very different areas - and both teachers are from the maths department!

I think a lot comes from the home environment. If your family took you to see the local village panto or shared a love of books, then you are almost inevitably more likely to grow up sharing those passions and enthusiasms. In my case, I took those and ran with them big style.

I''m very impressed with your Maths teacher Drama enthusiasts - part of my job involves working with a number of Drama teachers and I have never heard of a Maths teacher pitching in on, let alone leading, a production. That's great that they do that. In the schools where I worked, we felt very lucky if they turned up to see it.

I don't think you will see a shortage of people entering the theatre profession. You may just see fewer from some backgrounds.

Also, I wouldn't say that the only purpose of drama is to turn people into actors, etc. - any more than the purpose of English is to turn people in to professional writers. There are many other benefits to studying it.

When I would take students on trips to the theatre, it was not unusual for that to be their first theatre trip (or their first except for a panto.) I think (maybe idealistically) schools should try to offer cultural experiences that children may not get from their own homes.

I think a far bigger barrier to entry into the professions is the cost of attending drama school - that is where lack of money really kicks in. Yes, there are some institutions where the courses fall within regular university funding but that is far from universal (and I am not sure we should use public money to provide unlimited drama training - given the nature of the profession)

When it costs c£100 plus travel costs to audition for many drama schools and then you have to find the fees/living costs - that is why access to professional training is frequently restricted to certain groups.

Schools should be providing rounded education - and that does include balancing funding for sports, drama, music etc.

There will always be a problem when it comes to employment rates for those in the theatrical profession. The line most often quoted is that 90% of actors are out of work at any one time. I don't know how accurate that is - but working on the assumption that it is true, it does mean that those of independent means (or wealthy parents) are going to be able to afford to pursue their dreams post-training because they have the financial support for the down times. I don't know how you can reform the theatre sector to prevent that.

Do we take all drama schools into the university sector and then significantly reduce the number of places available so as to better reflect the needs of the industry? It has always struck me as unfair that people invest so much into training for a profession where the chances of recouping the costs of that investment are so relatively slim. You never want to stamp on the dreams of the hopeful, and you never want to turn away a future star in the making. But it is a very difficult balance to get right.

Talent should be nurtured and having good scholarship schemes for those from more disadvantaged backgrounds is clearly a necessary element to the picture.

In terms of the consume/create divide, I think it would be fair to say that most people are consumers of the arts rather than creators. Nurturing future audiences is what will allow the creators to have the opportunity for their work to be seen and enjoyed.

Taking Drama Schools into the university system would help. I’ve always made sure that any of my own students with a desire to go into performance only focus on establishments with a name as there are a number of places where you aren’t helping your future chances at all.

i absolutely believe that education isn’t about the consumer side, any of it. Given how much young people now have access to a means of creating and widely distributing their own creativity now, I think it’s important to give them the tools at school level. Things have changed so much even in the last decade on that score. Give students the tools by 14/16/18, don’t wait to send them off to get an expensive and/or useless degree when they would be better just trying their hand at it on leaving school instead.

Appreciation of theatre, yes, although its real benefit is to spur others to do their own thing, building on what exists. Some will prefer to just watch and let others create but that’s a useful by product.

Does it though? I've seen more Macbeths than I care to at this point, and I can only think of two, *maybe* three, that didn't bore me at all. The others weren't (all) necessarily bad, but they did cause me to drift and long for a quicker pace or shorter running time.