|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 13, 2022 0:52:04 GMT
The Times is reporting (behind a paywall) that the RSC has linked up with Cunard to give regular performances and exhibitions on board the Queen Mary 2 cruise ship How on earth is this the right thing for the RSC to be doing? Cruising is one of the most elitist forms of holiday - particularly at Cunard prices. It is just the wrong message to send out at the time when they have all but given up making theatre on dry land. It might be paying well but I still can't see the justification for such a move. Edit: here's a link with more details www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cunard-takes-shakespeare-to-the-high-seas-with-the-royal-shakespeare-company-301459842.html |
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Jan 13, 2022 1:12:41 GMT
I’ve read the Times article and thanks for looking this out Oxford simon.
It seems this is very much seen as a corporate opportunity for the RSC, noting that they’ve lost £50m in revenue, despite the £19m Cultural Recovery Loan.
I think the answer to your Q is very much - it’s the quickest way to make some money, I see it is a 3 year deal and 5 performers (presumably more back up, but Cunard providing technical support). So in purely business terms a risk worth taking for the reward. There’s a reference to the first production having been for donors previously, so maybe they think they can adapt or offer “exclusives” without too much expense. Or just attract wealthy donors or the more lucrative US market/donors. I think that could make business sense.
Of course nothing wrong with corporate sponsorship, particularly as other cruise lines are teaming up with festivals etc.
However, the issue here is that they still need to get on with performing for the core audience and meeting their core values which is what they are failing to do. Seems they are going to the extremes of community plays and corporate sponsorships…and they need to deliver still on something in between!
|
|
|
|
Post by kate8 on Jan 13, 2022 7:18:04 GMT
I haven’t been able to read the article, but this sounds like another depressingly ill-judged move, further diluting their public offering in order to run a sideline as court jesters to the wealthy. This is on the back of a long term decline in quality, Erica’s community obsession, and facilitating the Gorvys vanity project instead of reopening their permanent theatres in the summer/autumn.
Obviously it’s extra difficult with Greg on leave, but it’s not a recent problem. There’s no clear strategy, two fingers up to their loyal ticket buyers (again), and no understanding of what the RSC ought to be as a National, publicly-funded company. Rudderless sinking ship?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 13, 2022 7:30:22 GMT
Seems Erica Whyman is not all that bothered about getting a diverse audience after all. Oh and just by the way they gave up £m in sponsorship from BP which had been providing cheap tickets in the UK due to concerns about the "climate emergency" but are happy to take funding from high-end cruises which have truly massive carbon footprints. www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.4277147/a-cruise-ship-s-emissions-are-the-same-as-1-million-cars-report-1.4277180The RSC have always done things like this but they normally keep it quiet. For years they transferred productions to a college in USA or to smaller non-commercial theatres, sometimes these were productions that had played in Stratford but not anywhere else in the UK. Anyone see the William Houston Coriolanus ? Thought not - it did more performances in USA than in Stratford and none in London or anywhere else. There are other examples. |
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Jan 13, 2022 9:46:59 GMT
However, the issue here is that they still need to get on with performing for the core audience and meeting their core values which is what they are failing to do. Seems they are going to the extremes of community plays and corporate sponsorships…and they need to deliver still on something in between! Absolutely! No point in taking on a short-term money-making gig when they are losing the support and goodwill of those people who have been paying for tickets and memberships for years. And that's before you look at the ethical issues and the lack of any apparent vision for the future of the company. If the RSC is on the brink of bankruptcy (which is one way to interpret their post-Covid activities), they should be open about this, and let someone else have a go at running the company before it's too late... |
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Jan 13, 2022 10:05:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 13, 2022 10:14:02 GMT
Title of this thread should be RSC: All at Sea
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Jan 13, 2022 11:58:33 GMT
I was not going to comment on this but feel the need.
If the money went into regenerating the company through productions,reopening Swan,TOP etc I think I could justify the decision .However we know Erica Whyman will make her statements about ensuring education,community etc are served. The current RSC rejected its loyal audience,has shifted to education as its reason to exist and ignored innovative directors and actors. If….and it’s a big if…Greg returns with a new passion for the company he could turn it around.His love of Shakespeare is boundless and his knowledge of Early Modern,Jacobean ,Restoration etc very strong. He also is rooted in RSC history going back to Halls manifesto. He needs to be stronger as a leader and remind Erica she is not AD. Otherwise a very low level regional resource for education and community work.Fine but not what RSC charter explored.Henry V1 later this year follows the Dream etc community players model….yes,Jan…it is all at sea but my analogy would be more Titanic heading for iceberg . See little hope now.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 13, 2022 12:09:32 GMT
We need to see radical action on the part of ACE and others to bring an end to the current leadership of both the RSC and RNT.
But nothing will happen because of the lack of clear thinking at places like ACE. Too many decisions are made on the basis of close relationships between applicants and decision makers and/or on the basis of skewed priorities that do not serve audiences.
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Jan 13, 2022 12:43:24 GMT
Yep……
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 13, 2022 17:22:48 GMT
Greg ...... is rooted in RSC history going back to Halls manifesto. Well, here's Hall's vision for the RSC (from the RSC website): "Hall was appointed as Artistic Director, and created the Royal Shakespeare Company to realise his vision of a resident ensemble of actors, directors and designers producing both modern and classic texts, with a distinctive house style." Which of those has Doran followed ? Resident ensemble of actors: NO Resident directors: NO Resident designers: NO Producing modern and classic texts: NO Distinctive house style: NO |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 13, 2022 21:14:50 GMT
Dropping the BP dosh was a mistake imo. Lots they could have done to mitigate the idea of ‘oil’ money. They could have asked for more! Anyway, water or in this case petrol under the bridge now. Need solid big money plan. Big sponsorship and strong programming with star names to bring in the doubters. The Yankee dollar is important but unless RSC is present there to a degree, it disappears.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 14, 2022 7:47:37 GMT
Dropping the BP dosh was a mistake imo. I agree, but having done so they should at least be consistent and refuse to take money from the cruise industry - they either believe there's a climate emergency or they don't. At this point I think the best outcome would be for them to effectively go bankrupt and for ACE to reinvent them as a much much smaller organisation under a single committed young director who controls everything and loosely follows Hall's original vision. This wouldn't mean doing fewer productions given their current meagre efforts. At the moment having 1000 staff must introduce so much inertia into the system that it is vary hard for one person to change it, or (I assume) to find someone who even wants to attempt the task. On the face of it the NT look to be in a similar bad state but I think the main problem there is simply programming, replace Norris with Sam Mendes or Marianne Elliot and it's largely fixed. The RSC problems look far deeper and more structural to me (I mean just to name one they've got a main stage of such an unusual design there's nowhere to satisfactorily transfer successful productions to). |
|
354 posts
|
Post by properjob on Jan 14, 2022 18:09:42 GMT
I wouldn't put the NT and the RSC in the same bracket. The NT tried to put lots on during the pandemic including a panto when almost nowhere else could do one. They put a lot online some of it free. They tried to reopen several times. Some of the stuff they put on was very good. Some of it less so. But that's art!
I think I remember after one web broadcast they even encouraged people who could to donate to thier local theatre. Admittedly having a massive NTlive catalogue will be partly a legacy of previous ADs.
On the other hand what has the RSC done?It built an outdoor venue but then only put on one show in it if I remember correctly? People like Regent's Park were filling in thier show rest days with anyone they could get, Comedians, Mischief Movie night etc.
|
|
