WhatsOnStage.com: How very disheartening: Emma Rice is to leave Shakespeare's Globe in 2018, after a tenure of only two years. She's clearly been pushed, but it's the speed that's so shocking. The decision comes at the end of her very first season – a season that has shaken things up without being given the chance to shake down again.
Rice has challenged a hell of a lot in a short space of time – too much, too soon it now seems. Pledging gender parity in Shakespeare (and almost achieving it straight away) is not something that can be done without radical revisions. The same goes for audiences and accessibility. For all we say that Shakespeare's for everyone, it can just as easily be exclusive and elitist. Accessibility isn't just a price issue. It's about taste.
11 comments:
This explanation of why Rice is leaving seems more likely to me than a matter of technology. It was a tensions between change and tradition. I’m much more in Rice’s mentality of making Shakespeare more intentional, and potentially changing it. For example, Imogen sounds like a great idea to me. However, I also understand that there is a place for trying to preserve Shakespeare, for the sake of understanding history. What I don’t understand is why there can’t be both? Why can’t The Globe put on some shows that are historically accurate as possible, and some that make bold choice and potentially changes to the script? Going back to Imogen, why not do a production of Cymbeline and a production of Imogen one after the other? I know I’d be interested to see both plays in a short span of time for the sake of seeing how they compare. Perhaps The Globe suggested this, but I suspect if they had, Rice would’ve been willing to try staging some more traditional productions, though it is not impossible that she would’ve been against it. Even with this explanation, I don’t see why Rice would be asked to leave, rather than asked to shift the vision to some degree. I suppose either they couldn’t agree on a vision, or there is more going on than was discussed in the articles I have read.
This is really disheartening. With the Globe being such a highly visible source of Shakespeare, this sets an uncomfortable precedent. Though Shakespeare'a pieces are revered as a kind of universal body of work, they - now more than ever - can feel antiquated and out of reach, especially to younger generations. Though I believe a certain level of regard should always be held for his works in their original form, new iterations utilizing new perspectives and technologies are key to keeping Shakespeare relevant in a way that is not justified simply by "that's what we've always done". Emma Rice's ousting is a strong indicator - especially to younger audiences - that the Shakespeare they perceive may or may not be the "right" Shakespeare. So much for a "universal" body of work.
The board governing the Globe also comes off as extremely petty. Rice sparked curiosity with her productions, a likely audience draw. The board could very well undo all that she did.
I think that there is an interesting argument to be had here and I can easily see arguments for both, so why not both? To me, the Globe is a place to see authentic Shakespeare in a way you cannot anywhere else. That is why one travels so far to see it. At the same time, I see the value in modernizing the Globe in order to make Shakespeare more relevant to younger audiences. This being said, should the Globe continue to produce Shakespeare with modern technology it should be done carefully and correctly. I also believe that there can be a modernized Shakespeare production without there being modern technology. I believe that this solution makes the most sense to me because you are are using the Globe as the historic space it is, but the material is more accessible to younger theater-goers, which I believe to be the goal of Emma Rice. She could be also trying to implement new technology into the Globe, but I would question how appropriate that is.
Yes Matt Trueman spill this truth all over The Globe. I had no idea that this specific altercation always happening, but I have seen this type of circumstance often. Older often more privileged and conservative theatre goers wanting theatre to remain in its status quo. Which is fine for the, that’s what they like and there is nothing wrong with having a preference. However its not fine for theatre owners and producers and directors who are seeing ticket sales drop, who are closing down theaters while screaming that millennials have too short of an attention span to watch live productions. Millenials will watch live art, you just aren’t making it for them, and Trueman this articles author explains that perfectly. Your subscribers will die and then no one will see your shows if you keep making art strictly for them. Emma Rice include enticing electrics and Beyoncé, something that makes me want to go see this show when I am so sick of seeing Shakespeare!
Like Trueman said “Despite that, there's no denying that it's been a success.” Theatre artist everywhere need to embody Emma Rice and push creativity past the norm so that theatre doesn’t end.
The globe theater sparks a pretty divisive argument in that it is a very important theater because of its dedication to historical preservation, but also because making Shakespeare accessible to younger audiences is one of the most important ventures of companies producing Shakespeare currently. I personally enjoy watching and reading Shakespeare, however i would like to see it become more enjoyable for a wider audience of millennials. While i support Emma Rice's decision to modernize the Globe theater's production of Shakespeare, I think it is something that has to be extremely carefully done when considering the cultural and historical significance of the Globe.
There was an article about this specific incident with Emma Rice that I commented on yesterday, and the entire situation got my blood boiling like nothing else. This article is such a perfect answer to those arguments and addresses so many of the things that I was frustrated about, but also uncovers the deeper layer behind what I was upset about. The quote that I think sums up my feelings about the issue best is "some people are allowed to experiment where others aren't." Shakespeare can be so inaccessible to audiences in the first place, because it is seen as highbrow, fancy theater that is only pushed towards a certain demographic of people, despite the fact that we as a culture believe it is so revolutionary and important. This article proves that not only is viewing Shakespeare inaccessible, but apparently trying to bring it to people is also not as easy for some as it is for others. The fact that Emma Rice is the first female artistic director the Globe has ever had, coupled with all of the sexist and downright inappropriate things that her colleagues and fellow professionals have said to and about her, proves that this isn't a matter of technical and theatrical choices but one much more insidious and hateful.
Emma Rice has certainly sparked quite the controversy. But I don't necessarily agree with some of the assertions made in this article. There is an obvious stigma that surrounds The Globe and its historical preservation of the Shakespearean form. I certainly admire the affable goal of wanting to keep things historic and give audiences the opportunity to experience authentic Shakespeare as it was in 1600's, but isn't the probable sexism a little too far into the 1600's experience? The article certainly insinuates that this was a result of sexism, and I don't want to speculate as it didn't cite or include any specific evidence that would lead me to believe that (but it probably was). I think Rice worked hard to make significant change and bring in diversity that would further expand The Globe's audience demographic. Obviously that isn't something they want--so why dwell on it? We're going to pretend like it didn't burn down already once, and that it was built up with the exact same materials, and no modern technology exists and it shouldn't because such an "authentic" experience is "important."
Stories like this are so frustrating because if I give the Globe a huge amount of benefit of the doubt I can kind of see their point about how the Globe is the one place in the world you can see Shakespeare as it was originally performed. But if you take into account the fact that audiences were still coming to see the shows under Rice and that the reviews were still positive than no, of course Rice’s departure had nothing, or very little, to do with the technology she was integrating. I wrote another comment just this week about the pedestal we put Shakespeare up on that is unlike any other playwright and how ridiculous it is. Rice was trying to put boundaries and bring something new to the table, but unfortunately she was trying to do that with our sacred Shakespeare, which apparently is not allowed. Shakespeare’s plays are already known to be inaccessible and exclusive, so what kind of message are we, as theatre community, sending when we shut down people who try and change that?
This is a debate that I've had multiple times, and it's rare that I find somebody in my generation who doesn't agree with me. For the most part I think we all understand the way theatre evolves; as new works are written we also perform old prices and shine a contemporary light on them to make them relevant today. That is not to say performing a price in its original style is in any way bad; that in itself has its own artistic beauty. I honestly don't see why the Globe would discourage this reinvention of Shakespeare. Why not perform both modern adaptations and traditional performances of Shakespeare. I think that we actually be a very interesting route for the Globe to go down. It could create a space in which people could experience traditional Shakespeare and then later see examples of the relevancy of these plays in today's society through a contemporary adaptation. I think a strategical implementation of both styles could highly benefit the Globe, opening it up to new audiences as well educating and showcasing to those audiences the nature of the evolution of theatre and our world as a whole from past to present.
I really do agree with the author of this article. I think it’s a shame to hear that the board at the Globe isn’t happy with Emma Rice’s work as artistic director and are giving her such a short period of time to shine. I also think it’s interesting that they announced it so far in advance… are things just going to be really awkward for the next two years? I think the author makes two really strong arguments – the first that in Shakespeare’s time, the Globe was not a historical project, and therefore, trying to maintain the Globe “as it was” is a sort of contradictory endeavor. Secondly, making theatre to serve a specific space alone, ignorant of all other factors (notable the audience) is really not very useful or worthwhile. Like the author says, this stifles any possible innovations, and really just says that there is only one right way to do productions in that space. And as the author points out earlier in the article, this results in work that only suites a certain taste – in this case, elite. I applaud Rice’s efforts to produce work that is reflective of today’s times and audiences, and I think that her departure from the Globe despite how well their productions have been doing is a shame.
After reading more into this change at the Globe, I do agree with what the author says here. What really stuck with me was the quote "Are some people allowed to experiment where others aren't?" I think that really captures what's going on at the globe. If the Globe was a tried and true traditional Shakespeare theatre, trying to accurately replicate original Shakespeare, I think that the changes would be outrageous. But based on examples the author pulled, it is not like that at all, and experimentation has been commonplace before Emma Rice's term. So I think that while I am in favor of a traditional Shakespearian theatre, I think that it makes no sense to allow experimentation in some places but not others. That is the jurisdiction of the artistic director and what they think is the right choice.
Post a Comment