1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 1, 2022 8:45:25 GMT
Someone working there told me they’re replacing the seating. Don’t know how extensively.
|
|
395 posts
|
Post by lichtie on May 1, 2022 9:49:37 GMT
I believe that it's the cafe in the Other Place that reopens next year. Since the AD pack mentions the Mischief festival events they've run there in the past as well there is perhaps also the intention to restart that as well, so that would be summer 2023. By which time perhaps some of the tourists might have returned (at the moment they would almost certainly lose money on staffing even having the building open for the public for just the cafe).
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 1, 2022 11:26:07 GMT
If the RSC had been more active, more people would be visiting Stratford to attend a range of theatrical performances.
Stratford is struggling because of the failure of the RSC to give visitors a reason to return.
Granted part of the blame also lies with the Birthplace Trust who could have found a way to reopen more of the historic buildings under their care.
Staycationers were craving things to do last summer and the Shakespeare industry was not helping itself by staying largely inactive.
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on May 1, 2022 12:10:47 GMT
Both organisations failed Stratford. RSC ceased to exist for most people which explains a total lack of interest in the company beyond those who want change. I urge those concerned to write and lobby Board and Trustees,Recruitment agency and those on nominations panels.If they have enough responses they need to consider the best candidate rather than the expected …appropriate philosophy …appointment. Talking to people in Stratford on visit it is clear that most feel that there needs a full clear out at senior level…the very team that are responsible for demise. This includes Administrative staff who could not even open shop or cafe when others did across country. The RSC must be a new project….emphasis on sheer profession excellence. Whyman latest pronouncement of Royal Shakespeare Community is awful and so depressing. The p,ace feels like a hall where the top tal3nt has long gone……please write to Board and place some pressure to make honest appointment.
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 1, 2022 12:35:44 GMT
Stratford is absolutely heaving at the moment. Mile-long queues outside the food stalls in the outdoor market. Yet not many people going inside the theatre. Even the hire boats were doing better trade!
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on May 1, 2022 12:39:00 GMT
Bag checks don’t help…..snoopers
Nothing much to see in shop…vastly reduced stock
Tv screens dead
Cafe…tatty
Shows…..ok but no one knows much about these plays without pre research
No show pics on display to give flavour of what to see
Swan closed and area like long closed site with skips etc
Why bother
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 1, 2022 20:16:25 GMT
Agreed, it’s depressing how grotty the RSC feels compared to its heyday.
On the other hand, Stratford is looking pretty good. There’s a bougie coffee shop right by the station now! (Doesn’t take much to impress me.)
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 1, 2022 20:30:18 GMT
I know certain people think the RSC will die if Erica Whyman is made AD but realistically it's not going to happen nor will Stratford be without any theatre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 2, 2022 9:09:00 GMT
I know certain people think the RSC will die if Erica Whyman is made AD but realistically it's not going to happen nor will Stratford be without any theatre. Agree. It will not die, it will become a regional scaled-down lower-quality version of Chichester which, actually, it already is. |
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on May 2, 2022 11:43:29 GMT
Chichester have a programme of contrasting shows...two theatres operating plus the outreach.
RSC is very scaled down...but at least there is a garden for the soul rigged up .
How are the mighty fallen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2022 12:24:06 GMT
The Swann needs to be reopened. Also don't forget the main theatres were closed for redevelopment in not to distant past too. TOP I'm not sure if it could sustain being open all year but if the Swann is closed then it is reasonable for that to be open along with RST. I'd like TOP to be a new work/education hub to drive the school and community work personally.
The job advert is a lot of stuff about what the RSC does but the job description is interesting including the salary and accomodation. I never knew it involved accommodation until someone mentioned it but it would make sense. I always remember someone saying when the Stage Door was around the other side at about 18:45 to 18:55 a lot of evenings you'd see a stream of performers coming out of the cottages/houses on the other side of the road to go into the theatre.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 6, 2022 10:13:18 GMT
Doran is in The Times today with the headline saying that he doesn't believe Richard III can now be played by anyone other than a disabled actor
The article is behind the paywall so I can't read the nuance, if any, in his position.
But it is fundamentally a wrongheaded approach to the character and the play.
The textual references to Richard's physical appearance are little more than Tudor propaganda. They are frequently just self deprecating comments used for comic/dramatic effect.
At no point in the text is Richard portrayed as being in any way encumbered by his physical differences. He acts and interacts without reference to any difficulties.
The play is about his warped mind not his body.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that Richard can only be played by an actor with lived experience of a diagnosis of psychopathy even though it is his distorted mental state that is at the heart of the play and the character.
Historically we know that Richard was an able warrior who appears to have not been disabled by his scoliosis. There is also no evidence of the withered arm. But let that pass.
To say that Richard can only be played by a disabled actor is making a socio-political point not a dramaturgical one.
I absolutely agree that representation matters and that disabled actors need far more opportunities to shine.
But it is just oversimplification of the complex issues surrounding this to start trying to reserve certain roles for disabled actors.
Should Richard only be played by actors with scoliosis? Surely they would be the only ones with a real understanding of living with that condition.
Or doesn't it matter what the nature of the disability is? Isn't that risking tokenistic casting with the of appearing to do 'the right thing'?
I know I am commenting on an article that I cannot read. I hope Doran's position is more thoughtful than the headline makes out. But given the direction of travel at the RSC, I am not hopeful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2022 12:59:28 GMT
Interesting thoughtline from Greg as his late partner played a hugely acclaimed Richard III which was his first award winning lead role and really made his name.
Richard III is often played on crutches as a hunchback when it was probably scoliosis he suffered from. I have a slight curve in my back which people don't notice in everyday life and I'm not sure what disability the chap playing him this season at the RSC has.
I certainly agree that when parts require someone to be in a wheelchair then a wheelchair user should be cast and other roles which require similar disabilities conditions to be constant throughout the play then someone with that or a similar condition is ideally cast.
I've been a big fan of using actors with disabilities in mainstream roles and the RSC was certainly doing a good job of this pre-pandemic havibg hearing and sight impaired, wheelchair using, dwarf and actors missing part of an arm in their ensemble in roles which made no reference to their physical appearance.
But Greg's blanket comment could be taken to ridiculous measures for certain other roles so I don't agree with that as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 6, 2022 13:34:03 GMT
I wonder what Arthur Hughes thinks of Doran making such a big deal of this issue ? I mean he's implying the main reason Hughes was cast was because he's disabled which strikes me as somewhat insulting. I've seen Hughes in things (he's very good) where the fact he was disabled wasn't mentioned at all in the publicity - I prefer that approach.
Anyway, to prove his commitment on this issue I think Doran should apologise retrospectively for the RSC having cast Sher in the role (that launched his career). Either that or shut up.
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on May 6, 2022 15:20:23 GMT
Yes indeed
Start training now all disabled actors-you can play R111
This is absolute discrimination under guise of being socially aware.
Hard luck,Slinger,Fiennes,Goodman,McKellen,McArdle-dont want the likes of you here.
Greg -I feel very sorry indeed for his loss-but as he was writing his book the RSC was destroyed
Whole team out...new blood.
Board must be aware of all this.
Who will play Cymbeline ....need Welsh actors for evils......wicked Queen must have criminal record to empathise
ACTING-=BECOMING
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 6, 2022 15:41:05 GMT
The last R-III I saw was an electrifying turn by the great Greg Hicks at the Arcola. A lesser-known actor and I wouldn’t have bothered, it’s quite a dull old play, and casting a disabled actor wouldn’t have changed that. I fear R-III is destined to disappear from the repertoire.
I wonder if Doran thinks Shylock should always be played by a Jewish actor ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2022 16:37:30 GMT
It reminded me of the Lenny Henry joke I did Shakespeare yes I played Othello. I could imagine a disabled comedian using same line about Richard III?
As Jan comments about Greg with Shylock are we going to those lengths?
What about Captain Hook in the Peter Pan pantos?
I had thought about putting that earlier but held off but now why not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 6, 2022 16:54:33 GMT
Of course there is a valid argument in there - I think all would agree Othello should be played by a black actor. But “disabled” is such a broad category and it is peripheral to R-III. Like I said, I’d like to hear from disabled actors on this rather than Doran telling us all what has to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2022 17:46:34 GMT
I fully agree a person changing their skin colour to play Othello has been no go for 40 odd years. We have had the role reveresed and a white person play him with a black cast or something could potentially be done along the cast system with Asian actors in the roles.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 6, 2022 18:26:32 GMT
A lot of this is about how to portray otherness on stage.
The characters we are talking about are different in some way from the rest of the cast.
Richard is a psychopath power seeking narcissist. Shylock is a Jew in a Christian city.
Capturing the otherness is what is key. Not the personal narrative of the actor cast in the role.
Directors should never feel constrained by the the new orthodoxy when it comes to staging classic plays. There are many ways of interpreting them. Some will work better than others. But they should never be done to serve some sort of external agenda
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 6, 2022 19:04:35 GMT
Completely, totally disagree. As a disabled person I consider able bodied actors playing disabled characters to be utterly abhorrent and bigoted. It’s literally no difference from white actors blacking up to play Othello.
Obviously disabled actors need to be cast in more non-disabled roles (which is actually something the RSC is good on) but disabled actors face such huge discrimination and are often not allowed to even audition for roles that aren’t explicitly stated as being disabled. Considering how widespread anti-disabled bigotry is in the industry beginning from drama school on, why can’t privileged majority actors who already have the whole spectrum of roles potentially available to them not give up literally one single role to a minority actor? It’s so selfish to think that you’re entitled to ALL the roles just because you’re white, or able-bodied or whatever, when minorities have to fight just to be considered for the >1% of roles actually written for them.
Arthur is at least somewhat involved in disability activism and is part of the disabled actor network (as I am) and he just starred in a BBC drama about disability activism. It’s pretty clear just from looking at his social media feed that disability activism and disability representation is not unimportant to him. I’ve never met a disabled actor who didn’t care about this stuff.
I’ve been on this forum long enough to know that unfortunately there are a lot of people in theatre who feel threatened by the sheer existence of minority actors (there have been some unpleasant comments here in the past over casting black actors which have exploited many of the same arguments - that casting minorities is just political correctness, that acting should be acting, that the best actor should get the role - funnily enough no one ever has a problem with mediocre actors getting cast because of their privileged background - without any understanding of how deeply entrenched bias is in this industry).
If we lived in a perfect bias-free world where a disabled actor or a black actor is just as likely to be considered for Hamlet as anyone else, there would be no need for this. But we don’t.
“Start training now all disabled actors-you can play R111”
Yeah why shouldn’t they?? There are tons of wonderful highly trained disabled actors who can and should play tons of roles. Casting a disabled actor as RIII doesn’t say disabled actors can only play RIII, it’s a way of giving a disabled actor a showcase and a break for them to display their acting skills which then hopefully lead to being cast in non-disabled roles.
*Hard luck,Slinger,Fiennes,Goodman,McKellen,McArdle-dont want the likes of you here.*
Yeah God forbid posh white able-bodied men only have 99% of roles available to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 6, 2022 19:43:51 GMT
I do fully understand what you are saying.
But Richard as a character doesn't view themselves as being disabled. That is something imposed on him by others.
That is my concern about the idea that the only appropriate casting for Richard is a disabled actor.
It is absolutely a casting choice that can be made and it works really well as has been proved in a number of recent productions.
But it is not the only approach to the play and the character. I do not believe this particular role should be reserved as Doran suggests.
There have been productions where the portrayal of disability was so exaggerated as to be offensive. The Rylance production at the Globe was particularly bad in this regard. That should never happen again.
In my younger days spent two years working with a group of amateur performers more than half of whom were disabled. We did a play and a musical each year and it was an incredibly rewarding experience. I fully understand and support the need for increasing opportunities for disabled actors in all areas of theatre both professional and amateur.
One of my local theatres is effectively inaccessible for wheelchair users as there are no ground floor dressing rooms. I appreciate that older buildings are often difficult to adapt but asking an actor with limited mobility to change in the toilet because there isn't another option is just not acceptable.
But on the specific topic of Shakespeare's Richard III, I don't agree that casting directors should only consider disabled actors going forward. There are many roles where I would agree. But not this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 6, 2022 20:29:53 GMT
If the role is ring-fenced for a disabled actor the play will be produced even less often than it is now. The Almeida and Arcola only produced it as a star vehicle for Fiennes and Hick, if they were barred from the part then the play wouldn’t have been staged at all so it’s not as simple as them “taking” the role from a disabled actor. The play will just drop out of the repertoire except at the RSC and Globe every decade or so.
|
|
4,029 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dawnstar on May 6, 2022 20:30:29 GMT
I think all would agree Othello should be played by a black actor. Othello is described as a Moor. Doesn't that mean that he should be played by someone of North African ancestry? Whereas black nowadays seems to be usually used to describe people with sub-Saharan African ancestry. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 6, 2022 21:34:03 GMT
If the role is ring-fenced for a disabled actor the play will be produced even less often than it is now. The Almeida and Arcola only produced it as a star vehicle for Fiennes and Hick, if they were barred from the part then the play wouldn’t have been staged at all so it’s not as simple as them “taking” the role from a disabled actor. The play will just drop out of the repertoire except at the RSC and Globe every decade or so. You could say that about any play that has a lead role not a white able-bodied man. You could say that about any play that has a black lead, or even a female protagonist. Theatres still reject phenomenal plays for those very reasons today. Richard III’s one of the most popular and frequently performed Shakespeare plays and has existed for over 400 years. It’s on all the bloody time. The idea that it’s just going to vanish and never be produced again because some bigots hate seeing anyone not an able-bodied white man getting to play leads is ridiculous. Besides why should we pander to what bigots want? Hicks is a wonderful actor but he’s hardly a household name. He made his career and his name by playing those Shakespearean roles, rather than being a famous actor who was cast in those roles because of his fame. If Hicks can make his name by playing those roles why can’t a disabled actor do the same? Cast more disabled actors and as a result we’ll have more disabled actors who are famous enough to have star vehicles created for them. Why don’t they deserve the same opportunities as any other actor? That’s pretty much what the social model of disability is, and while personally I find SMOD problematic in some respects it’s the prevailing model in the UK and certainly omnipresent in the theatre industry. I honestly don’t know a single disabled actor who doesn’t at least partly subscribe to SMOD. People have really weird ideas about what disability is. |
|
