|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
Changes at the RSC - StratfordThe plan also raises concerns about Stratford. The loss of The Other Place is raising temperatures considerably, but Noble argues that it isn't, in fact, lost, even though it is to be the home of the new "academy". "My dream in Stratford," he says, "is to have two streams of productions playing across three flexible spaces - something that gives us the freedom to do promenade Shakespeare or proscenium arch European classics as the occasion demands." The new academy will be aimed at attracting the best new graduates from the drama schools, giving them advanced training in classical acting and inculcating in them the ethos of the RSC. Based at The Other Place, it will be run by Cheek by Jowl's Declan Donnellan and it is hoped that it will prevent the best actors of each year group graduating straight to TV and film. No mention has been made of the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre which, everyone who has ever worked there agrees, needs considerable work to make it into a modern theatre space which is attractive for actors and audiences alike. There has been much talk for a considerable amount of time about major refurbishment, even rebuilding, but this is not touched on in the new plans. One must assume - and I am not entirely certain it's a safe assumption, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt - that it is still a priority. What compels me to make the caveat above is the comment made by Noble in an article in "The Times": "We are refocusing the RSC on performances and away from building and theatre management. We are talking about the RSC becoming one of the first large companies to define itself through the work it does and the performances it gives rather than through the buildings it occupies." Elsewhere Noble has remarked that he wants to take the RSC away from being building-led to being ideas-led. Good? Bad? Don't know? So, are the new plans good or bad for the RSC? For myself, the only answer I can give is a definite maybe. The present RSC is the result of developments made over the last forty-plus years. Clearly those who have supported the company for a long time (some for those 40-odd years) are going to be worried. Will it change beyond recognition? Will standards of performance be preserved? Will its distinctiveness vanish? Will it become just another theatre company? Is Shakespeare safe in its hands? We have to say that we don't know: it is far too early to tell. We have to believe that Noble and Boyd and the other supporters of the move have the best interests of the RSC at heart and that they know what they're doing. We have to accept, too, that no organisation can stand still: that way leads to death, or at least to being so moribund that it might as well be dead. Theatre needs periodically to re-invent itself, and so do theatre companies. This could well be the time for the RSC to do so. We have to give it time. What is very clear, however, is that if Noble et al. have got it wrong, the hounds will be baying for blood - theirs! Further Reading In a world of dazzle, beware a lost identity (Michael Billington in the "Guardian") Articles Indices: |
|
|