|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
The Way Ahead for Boyd and the RSCDateline: 28th July, 2002 I suspect that no one knows better than Michael Boyd what problems he's going to have to face to get the Royal Shakespeare Company functioning as it should. Apart from the ever-increasing deficit which could reach £1.8m (some say £2m) by the end of the year, the company has, we are told, taken many massive blows to its morale and the direction in which outgoing artistic director Adrian Noble has taken it has brought massive protests from supporters everywhere. The furore raised by the breaking of the Barbican connection, coupled with the poor (in terms of audiences) Roundhouse season and the dreadful advance for the Haymarket, has cast a shadow over the whole London season. Then we have the Stratford proposals: the demolition of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre and the building of what more and more seems to be a sort of Will Shakespeare theme park (although most of that could simply be media hype). Then there's the introduction of short term contracts to attract stars, which many see as the end of the ensemble nature of the company. I don't know what they're paying him, but, by God, he's going to earn every penny. This job is the archetypal poisoned chalice! So what should he do? He has to do a very delicate balancing act. On the one hand, the RSC does need to change, just like everything. If something doesn't change, it will die. If it hasn't changed for a long time, it's probably dead already and just doesn't realise. On the other hand, the RSC has a fantastic heritage which it must preserve, not only for the company's sake, but for the sake of theatre in this country. The Royal Shakespeare Theatre Buildings, of course, are the least important. the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Grade II listed building or not, is not a particularly good theatre building and even major changes within the existing structure would be mere tinkering. If the company is to unleash the same kind of creative freedom in Stratford that it has managed to do at the Roundhouse, a new building is essential. But all things taken into account, the building is the smallest problem: it is by what he does with the company itself that Boyd will be judged. As one of his colleagues, Michael Attenborough, says, "He has to heal and strengthen a deeply worried and confused company. I know he will take the RSC back to its grassroots. Repairing the company will take a while: nobody should expect miracles overnight." The Company And Stephen Daldry added, "Organisationally the RSC needs an imaginative managerial genius as well as an imaginative directorial talent." Boyd, he believes, is the right man for this. Already he has talked about longer contracts, but at the same time he has also committed to attracting back the stars of the past, instancing, for example, Vanessa Redgrave and Alan Rickman. Whether or not the two are incompatible is uncertain, but I have to say that my own feeling is that the strength of the company for many years has been the fact that stars have risen from the ensemble and one thing that the real RSC aficionados are very keen on is playing a kind of "spot the future star" game. It would be a major mistake - and out of keeping with the traditions of the company - to import "stars" for the main parts, for this would, in the long run, demoralise the ensemble members. On the other hand, the presence of "stars" does pull in the punters, and the RSC desperately needs to rescue its very worrying financial situation. Another part of the balancing act that Boyd is going to have to perform. New Writing His commitment to new writing is very welcome, but is likely to prove somewhat contentious. A theatre-loving friend of mine, looking at the forthcoming Newcastle season, remarked with some asperity, that there's not much Shakespeare, and that is not an uncommon reaction. Here Boyd has a three-way balance to achieve: between Shakespeare, other classics and new writing. A Home in London "You abandon your place in London for a monastic set-up in Stratford at your peril," Boyd has said. "But we have just had an enormously painful divorce from one home. We need to think before rushing into a new home - that would not be a venue for all year round, but somewhere the audience can associate with the RSC." If anything shows the necessity for a permanent, if not year-round, London base for the company, it's the audiences for the current season. The Roundhouse has not reached break-even and the Haymarket looks set to follow suit. The RSC cannot afford that kind of drain on its resources: £21,000 a week for a West End theatre is one cost that has been much bandied about recently. Audiences tend to be conservative: they like going where they like going, and don't like to change. They are, to an extent, creatures of habit. And they won't follow s company blindly from one venue to another: the Roundhouse has proved this. Innovation Finally, if the RSC is to shake off the dead weight of recent controversies and if it is to grow, not stagnate, then it must be innovative. Michael Attenborough's comment that "Michael takes absolutely nothing for granted. He takes a delight in re-examining everything from the grass roots upwards. He will be absolutely rigorous with the work and create circumstances that enable actors and directors to be as thorough and creative as possible too" suggests that this is one area in which we can expect some excitement. His Dream, with its snowbound opening scene, shows the way. If he can find the same level of insight and innovative thinking in relation to the other problems that he faces, then the RSC has a bright future. If he can't - and if the company's board have misplaced their trust - then we will see the Royal Shakespeare Company dwindle to little more than a relic, and that is not good for theatre in general, not just the RSC. Articles Indices: |
|
|