For sometime now the National Theatre (NT) has been failing. Sure they have excelled in some productions, War Horse for example, but in some, think Katie Mitchell's efforts, they have been appalling. I remember, not too long ago, when the rising star was the NT and the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) was in the dumps, how times have changed!

Surely Mr Hytner it is time to collect your carriage clock and sail off into the proverbial sunset.

As his successor my money would be on Michael Attenborough if he could only be prised away from the Almeida. Failing that Jonathan Kent will soon be available after the early demise of Margaurite (not entirely his fault either!). If not him then I wonder if Michael Grandage could be encouraged to come over from the Donmar?

Whom ever it is, it is time for change - so Mr Hytner, move on and take some of your not so brilliant protégé with you.

The campaign starts here!

The campaign starts here![/quote]

And, I hope, ends here. I think Hytner has done an amazing job, particularly with regards to making the venue more accessible and I think it is now seen as less elitist than it was once perceived to be. The imminent Sunday openings, Travelex £10 scheme and other student passes and discounts have been hugely beneficial. And as for the productions themselves... I personally am no fan of Katie Mitchell, I have not enjoyed any of her work that I've seen. However, diversity should be encouraged. I also happen to dislike most of Pinter's work, but he is a Nobel prize winning playwright because lots of people do like him!

I think Much Ado, Major Barbara, Present Laughter, The Revengers Tragedy among other recent productions have been excellent.

I've not seen any of Katie Mitchell's work, but as far as I'm aware, it tends to divide opinion- she obviously sells tickets, otherwise they wouldn't have her back so often.

It seems that you've got a bee in your bonnet about something; as far as I'm aware the NT is doing very well. I expect Jan will be on here soon to reprimand you for suggesting that the RSC is so much better at the moment, since their output this year is minimal (in terms of quantity)- if anyone, I'd have to agree that it's the RSC who are going through a low patch, since at the moment they only seem to have one production running (Hamlet- occasionally they do a MND or TOTS).

I'm probably falling into the old trap of replying to things that are better left to die, but I also disagree. The NT doesn't produce things that are consistently to my taste - which is good, because it's there for the nation, the whole of which I'm certainly not representative of.
I go and see pretty much everything it puts on and have regularly come away surprised to have strongly enjoyed something I wasn't expecting much of. I've also sometimes come away disappointed by productions I was really looking forward to (Oh, Her Naked Skin, how you misled me...) but even when that happens the quality is consistently high, and I have never left thinking "Christ, I wish I hadn't bothered...", which is a real compliment considering how often I go.
I also think there is a lot of innovative thinking going on for the spaces outside the three theatres. So I'm personally very happy for Hytner to carry on for a bit longer. Which I'm sure puts his mind at rest no end.

Hytner as a director does not excite me and I so generally avoid his productions. However I truly admire his scope in programming as it consists of so much variance and I’m very happy with the 4 or 5 things I see a year there. Sure I’ve seen some turkeys, I’m now bored with Katie Mitchell and thank heavens the Guardian headline plays have now gone. St Joan, War Horse, Coram Boy, Woman of Troy, Happy Days, Democracy, Measure for Measure, Iphigenia, Vienna Woods (am I the only one?) and Caroline or change all add up as some of the best theatre going I’ve had in the last 5 years or so.

What is also very impressive is the accessibility policy and how it has blown away the cobwebs.

The only thing I have not enjoyed during his time is the lack of musicals. Not the classics that Terror Nunn used to produce or the major juke box crap in the West End but Stephen Sondheim and the next generation i.e. LaChuisa and Guettel.

I’m more then happy for him to stay. Which I’m sure means a lot to him!

The debate, though interesting, is somewhat sterile because hasn't NH signed on for another 4 or 5 years just recently ? My choice as successor would be Michael Grandage - his forthcoming West End season is surely something of an early job application (star names, large-stage box office hits and (we assume) artistic credibility).

The subsidised theatres really crying out for a change of leadership are The Young Vic whose programming is stale and whose director overvalues his own ability (and failed in his own pathetic foray into the West End), and (to a less extent) The Almeida - Michael Attenborough is such a second-rate director (yes, he directed Richard II, I know ... I know ....).

I have mixed feelings about Nicholas Hytner's reign, and I've voiced plenty of criticism on this site. But on balance he's done more good than harm, with some terrific high points, mostly mentioned elsewhere on this thread.

One day, please, Jonathan Kent and Paul Brown must become joint artistic directors of the NT. What a golden era that will be. For now, though, I'm content to let nature take its course.

Job

Hear hear!!
Shame that Marguerite had to close early but as others have said that was not exactly Kent's fault. Fingers crossed for Job's "golden age" to start before too long!

I'm fairly new to the world of regular theatre-going; since I've been a regular theatre-goer, I've only known one musical at the National, 'Caroline, or Change' (although I have the CDs of 'Oklahoma!' and 'South Pacific'). I was under the impression that musicals at the National are an insane rarity and you only get one every two or three years. Is this a Hytner thing? Has it always been like this? Is this even a true impression? Can we PLEASE get 'The Light in the Piazza' into the Olivier?

Can we PLEASE get 'The Light in the Piazza' into the Olivier?[/quote]

YES! I absolutely agree, whether the NT will be able to match the superb production I saw at the Vivian Beaumont in NYC is questionable. But with Jonathan Kent directing, that would make all the difference, he would do a fantastic job.

The bonus also would be that he would get at least one foot in the door of the NT too, if he does let's hope it stays!

Hytner pretty much made his name with highly successful musicals, but seems a lot less keen on programming them; something I think is fairly wise considering the West End climate where it has been stressed frequently that there are too many musicals and the fact that critics tend to turn to the big producing theatres (National, Donmar, Almeida, Royal Court, etc) to show that there is still life for the straight play. Trevor Nunn was subject to some criticism for his over-abundance of musicals at the National which is a fair point, but they do bring in the punters and the cash. Another musical Hytner hosted at the National was Jerry Springer:The Opera, though to be fair, this was not an NT production.

What makes you think Paul Brown would bring anything at all to the role ? He wasn't Kent's co-director at the Almeida and so has no experience at all of running a theatre organisation. I think Kent's chances have been damaged by his Haymarket season, the swathes of empty seats will not have impressed the NT Board. His own productions at NT have hardly been triumphs either (so far).

What is curious about NH is how his own productions prior to him taking the NT job were (in my opinion) so much better than those afterwards (particularly of Shakespeare).

What I think Hytner has done well is use the National Theatre space. The exhibitions are excellent (the current Press Photographer of the Year is fantastic - during the Olympics they had huge photos arriving on a big printer and stuck on the wall so that it was absolutely up-to-date, hours after an award-winning performance, there was the picture on the wall), the new Terrace restaurant was long overdue, the bookshop is well-stocked, the use of the outdoor space is inventive....Unfortunately, what's going inside the theatres is less thrilling, at least recently. The best productions I've seen this year were the theatrical but flawed 'Revenger's Tragedy' and (I know others will disagree with this), Katie Mitchell's 'The Trojan Women' and 'The Waves.' Set against this you have 'Fram', 'Afterlife', 'Never So Good,' 'Her Naked Skin' which all seemed turgid to me. The Connections plays were not nearly as good as the previous year's either. Because there are often cheap tickets around I know a lot of people are willing to try what the National has to offer and there are some enticing deals for students too, but I worry that if they either bore people too many times or have to up their ticket prices, a lot of good will will disappear.

My son has a theory that the Olivier Theatre is something of a curse for most plays. I can think of plays that I have loved that would have absolutely lost their effectiveness in that space, so maybe that's part of the problem. It seems to attract, at times, large vacuous productions.

Reich, you were absolutely not the only one to enjoy Vienna Woods. I was fascinated by it.

The three NT spaces have enormous scenic potential, but by their nature they need a design visionary who can exploit them in partnership with the presiding literary genius. Kent/Brown bring a dual aesthetic to everything they do, (as Declan Donnellan & Nick Ormerod have also done for many years) and I can only guess at what they might achieve together at the NT.

Why these two? Because they would carry the NT forward in new directions. As artistic director Nicholas Hytner has been a bit too conservative, as was Trevor Nunn before him (even though I enjoyed Nunn's reign a lot). The NT needs an iconoclast at the helm, and I think Kent/Brown fit the bill. Besides, I'm a fan.

Job

It’s an interesting one and it’s going fantastically off topic! The West End may be crammed with musicals but I do question the quality of most them. I personally believe the NT and other public places have a duty to go where the West End won’t and encompass plays, dance, opera etc.

There is more then one type of musical. Is one a year at the NT too much too ask?

In Hynter’s defence I feel he is stretching the boundaries of using musicans… A matter of life and death (as vile as it was!) Every Good Boy, In-i, Corum Boy & Oedipus all used / will use music for far more the average underscore and set changes that you generally get at the NT

Reich has a point. The West End is crammed with musicals, but they're mostly jukebox, turgid revivals, long-runners, transfers of uber-popular Broadway fare, and the occasional ambitious newbie that sometimes does okay ('Zorro', which is half-jukebox anyway) but mostly wishes it hadn't bothered ('Gone with the Wind', 'Marguerite').

What I would like to see is stuff that is - at the risk of sounding awful - more artistic, if you will. No West End producer will bring over 'Grey Gardens', so why not stick it in the Lyttleton for a couple of months? 'The Light in the Piazza' would sink at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane, but would look lovely in the Olivier for a limited run. 'Caroline, or Change' is precisely what I would like to see more of; a brilliant show that wouldn't work in the West End, but gets London stage time anyway, because it *is* that good and it *does* deserve it. I feel we don't get nearly enough Sondheim in the UK, and there's a whole wealth of other US composers that could use the exposure; Guettel, Lippa, LaChiusa, and other such obvious ones. And that's just shows that already exist!

And what about nurturing our own talent? It's not like people aren't writing and producing, but it's always on such a limited scale. If we don't make more of our homegrown talent, then people will most likely draw the assumption that the only thing Britain has to offer musical theatre is Andrew Lloyd Webber, and the contents of someone's record collection. And that would make me very embarrassed to be a UK theatre fan on a world stage. XP

Anyhoo! Hobby horse over.

Anyhoo! Hobby horse over. [/quote]

Quite Right!

But whilst the current regime is installed at NT HQ it ain't gonna happen, that's why I believe it's time for change.

I'm not sure Michael Grandage's West End Donmar is a strong audition-piece for the NT. It, like his West End Guys & Dolls, is aimed very much at a high-paying market (fair enough, because that's who it'll draw) but there's not a whiff of genuinely inclusive pricing in his season which is surely a constitutional element of the National theatre. Everyone here seems to be judging running the NT on programming alone when it's far, far more than that. What remotely has Grandage or Kent or your other contenders done in their recent/current roles to suggest they're engaging more than just the same old crowd? You may want more of an artist in the NT topslot but is that really what the role is for? To my mind, almost all of you are just saying who you personally want to suit your personal taste, which is fair enough, but it's not the RDS Theatre or the Jan Brock Theatre, it's the National Theatre. Even if I don't occasionally love every single production it stages, I try to remember it's not all for my individual taste and benefit.

Through wide diversity of programming, commissioning of mainstage work from (at the last count) 17 different British writers just this year, setting a cross-arts precedent in access through the Travelex scheme and now the Sunday openings, changing the demographic of Olivier audiences more than any predecessor in the role, deploying an incredibly extensive and matchless outdoor programme to engage thousands more people who would never habitually step foot inside a theatre, putting more first-class shows on tour, revitalising the Studios as a more accessible and interactive education space, and planning a major new education complex for the rear of the NT site, plus all the work to make the NT atria more enticing, social, inspiring spaces, I think Nick Hytner is the best director the National Theatre has had yet, absolutely regardless of the fact he's only so far staged two outright musicals in his time there.

What is also very impressive is the accessibility policy and how it has blown away the cobwebs.

[/quote]

If by accessibility you include the Travelex £10 ticket deal, most of which appear to be taken up by the "usual suspects" cobwebs an' all, me included, then the true benefit would seem to be that we can now walk out at the interval having wasted only £10 instead of the cost of a full price ticket!

The Donmar West End season may not be as "inclusively" priced as the National, but it's still a damn sight more accessible than West End prices generally. For £50, you could go see a comparative unknown singing pop songs wrapped around a flimsy plot... or you could go see Judi Dench and Derek Jacobi. In two different plays. (And you can get seats at both theatres for £10. Not necessarily the best seats in either case, but seats nonetheless.)

I do feel quite spoiled and not necessarily relevant to this discussion; as I think I said, I've only been a regular theatre-goer for just over two years, and I didn't even start regular visits to the National until late 2007, so I genuinely have only ever known the National to be as it is right now. And I've enjoyed just about everything I've seen there. And still cite 'War Horse' as one of my all-time theatrical highlights.

But my little twopence is when you've got a venue like the National, that can and does run at least six shows in rep at any one time, it'd be nice if a musical could be stuck in every twelve months. (And that's a valid point despite my inexperience, it's been well over a year since 'Caroline, or Change' and no sign of any other musicals to come. I'll give props for the forthcoming dance show though. ) It's not like there aren't any musicals "worthy" of the attention so... just one a year? Why not?

It is an audition piece in that it shows he can fill a large theatre and attract star names in plays which have some artistic merit. For "inclusive pricing" refer to his years in charge at Sheffield.

Sorry to disabuse you of the notion that your son has a unique insight into this but his "theory" ranks as a statement of the bleeding obvious. It has been stated many times before starting from the early days of Peter Hall (check his Diaries). It is a very difficult space to stage works in, or design for. Hall's solution wih Albert Finney in "Tamburlaine" was just to make him stand in the one spot on the stage which was audible and visible for the entire audience and have him bellow his lines.

Keep your hair on, Jan - where did I say this was a 'unique' insight, so no need to disabuse me of anything at all. However, he feels it so strongly that he will say, 'if it's in the Olivier I don't want to see it' - which if shared by others means that no matter who is running the place, that's going to be a problem. Grandage is one of my favourite directors, but I don't know if I would want him saddled with the NT.

Foxa: make him go see 'War Horse'.

... yeah, that's all I have to add. Sorry! But some of my favourite theatre-going times have been in the Olivier, so I feel a little sad and almost a tad bemused that people can and do feel so differently.

... yeah, that's all I have to add. Sorry! But some of my favourite theatre-going times have been in the Olivier, so I feel a little sad and almost a tad bemused that people can and do feel so differently.

[/quote]



Mine too, but that was a long time ago, Coram Boy and War Horse excepted, and remember these were miked! It is too vast for the up and coming actors of today who can't project their voices. Although having said that many established actors seem to have forgotten how to project their voices too.

Undobtedly, directors sit dead centre in the fourth row and, of course, hear everything. It is a flawed auditorium. I have long advocated miking actors in plays on that stage. With the sophisticated technology available today and careful positioning of loud speakers it would be possible to elevate the sound level just sufficiently to overcome this problem - better doing that than wasting it on the technological crap Ms Mitchell is allowed to get up to with our NT's valuable and finite resources.

Just goes to show how impossible it is to keep us all pleased - I really like the Olivier! Admittedly I always sit at the front so I've never had much of a prob with the acoustics. I find it a really warm, engaging space, much more so than the Lyttelton, which is quite alienating - no matter where I sit there I always feel at a distance. Comfy seats, good rake, nice view from the balcony at the interval - bloody lovely...

I can't speak for what Reich (whom you quoted) meant by accessibility, but I'd say it's not necessarily about the £10 seasons. I'd include pretty much everything in the 2nd paragraph of Theatresquirrel's post:



If you frequently feel you have to leave at the interval of NT productions, that's a shame & very frustrating for you. But it's not a reason for Hytner going. I have some misgivings about the NT and one or two of the productions, but on the whole think it's doing fine and see no compelling reason to suggest he should stand down.

Interesting thread, going over old territory but some new. And good to hear from Weez who has he says only being going to the NT for a couple of years. They did mike the Utopia plays, thank goodness because I was in the circle from which I find it v difficult to hear. But that actually made the plays a kind of cinematic turn plus the video stuff which enhanced that impression. In trying to be huge, Stoppard became dull.

The Lyttleton is acoustically flawed. Sound disappears at the sides. Go on, correct me, but I am right, guys. Musicals do well in the Olivier, Guys and Dolls [ of blessed memory] Oklahoma two of the best but we don't really want musicals to take over this huge space. The West End has brilliant theatres for musicals. Maybe one every couple of years.

Somebody has to sit down and really work out what does go well in the Olivier. Putting the names in there eg Kenneth Branagh in that fast moving thing the other year just because they knew they would fill it , is not a policy. Having David Hare do his political thing in there is also a policy of diminishing returns. What encouraged me was seeing loads of young 'uns at Revenger's Tragedy. And this play, vast in its terror and overblown characterisation actually worked in the Olivier like nothing had for a while. And the revolve was used to good effect. So maybe dredge the canon for plays that have this bigness. We have the technicals, we have the actors, we have the directors [ please send our Katie on a sabbatical to the Galapagos...] but not the plays. Hmm... I see nothing wrong in bringing in stuff from other countries like they do at the Barbican in a kind of season. We might learn something.

And while I'm on the subject...[ I can hear the snores] ..it was so disappointing the other day to go into the Cottesloe and find the same audience seating layout as every other time. This used to an experimental place with seating changing and even promenade productions. KM's efforts [ hardly a play and not a show] would have benefited maybe from an alternative layout so we could actually get closer to the effects, be part of the process.

The West End has brilliant theatres for popular, well-known musicals. There's nowhere in the West End where a revival of lesser-known musicals would work. I'd like to see the NT do new musicals or musicals that haven't been seen for many years, not the same stuff that is constantly doing the rounds everywhere else. Oklahoma! was good, but I'd rather see something like Me and Juliet.

Hytner's there until 2013, and I believe he has further plans to transform the scope and function of the building, which can only be a good thing. I take everyone's point about musicals: I can see why he has a moratorium on classic musicals after Nunn's incessant revivals, but it couldn't hurt to include the odd new one in the programme. I think there have been some projects along these lines which have started development, but lost their way and never made it to the stage. However if the NT is shipping in Broadway plays such as August: Osage County lock, stock and barrel, you'd think they might find a place for further Broadway musical imports. You never know... I think the planning of the NT programme is quite fluid (for which read last minute!) so one could emerge...

I rarely go to the NT these days.

There hasn't been anything recently that has made me think "Oooh! I must see that!". My main response has been indifference which was not the case under previous directors.

On the subject of musicals, I agree that Trevor Nunn played safe, but I loved seeing musicals like Sweeney Todd, A Little Night Music and Lady in the Dark which were done under Richard Eyre. I wish they would do more musicals that wouldn't get done in the West End.

Scope and function?
As in Sunday opening times and the out door performance space – very good ideas in my opinion
I wonder what next?
Was it Hynter or Nunn who was talking about turning the Lyttelton into Theatre in the Round?

That's not going to happen, I talked to someone over there a few weeks ago about whether they would follow the RSC's path and dispose of their last true proscenium stage, and the answer was a firm "no". They want to keep it as it is for NT productions that they plan to tour, as they'll more than likely be playing proscenium arch theatres on the road, and also for visiting productions, as most of those will have originated in "traditional" spaces. They might adapt it temporarily for the odd production, but the plan is for the Lyttleton to remain as it is.

[quote name='Nigel' date='Aug 28 2008, 04:46 PM' post='46002']
I rarely go to the NT these days.

I too used to relish going to the NT, but that was many years ago now.

Sure the target has been hit occaisionally, but also, more often than not, missed in recent times. To me the golden era has passed.

Inevitably, any leadership runs its course and loses momentum. It's the same with any big institution. From time to time we all need a kick up the butt.

Every artistic director needs to be accountable. It would be a great idea if priority members, the stalwarts of the NT audience, were given a vote on up coming productions. Shock! Horror! My god what do the ordinary people, out there in the dark, know about putting on theatre! Well! actually, we seem to know quite a lot from some of the interesting responses to this blogg. Many seem to have a very valuable opinoin on what the NT should be showing.

If Mr Hytner really wants to make the NT "inclusive" how about taking seriously the opinions of us, the members who put their money where their mouths are, into account and run ballots on what the NT should be doing? That's not so revolutionary is it? Perhaps it may see the likes of Ms Mitchell kicked off the schedule, but hey! if that's what the punters want.

Go on! be brave! give it a try!

Marvellous idea to give us a say in what gets put on. Why stop there? We should be able to say who we want to play which parts!

RDS, I’m confused by who precisely you want this referendum for:

1. the priority bookers

This is curious on three grounds. Firstly, presumably most of the priority bookers like the National very much as it presently is, or they wouldn’t be paying a large premium. Secondly, priority bookers are invited to NT gatherings regularly and this one at least has been asked his views on those occasions. Thirdly, do you sincerely think the NT is just for the people who already go a lot? Do you think the NT should stop their in its reach? Do you think that's what being a National theatre means?

2. those ‘who put their money where their mouth is’

Do you genuinely suppose that all decisions made by the current NT management are somehow made without any consideration of what the audience is turning up and paying to see?

3. the people on this blog

Are you kidding? Nobody on this thread has yet conveyed even slight insight into the manifold business of running a cultural organisation that must comply to government, corporate, trust and vast individual subsidies. To think, based on a few calls for more diverse musicals, we’d even know where to begin this incredibly elaborate role is just hilarious. Of all the arrogant stuff I’ve read on this board over the years (and I’ve said some of it myself), this kind of hubris easily beats the lot.

Or like me are just overcome by inertia and haven't cancelled the annual membership which I took out when things at the NT were a bit more to my liking.

Incidentally, I don't think I would ever accuse you of being arrogant in your postings here. Sanctimonious and condescending maybe, but not arrogant.

I doubt very much that "most of the prority members" are overcome by the same inertia as you. But perhaps if those you who are now inert would bother to cancel your memberships it would send a signal of your dissatisfaction.

The referendum idea is silly and unworkable, whichever way you slice it.

- In the past I have received emails from the ROH asking me to rate various aspects of the performance and my reasons for booking. I’m not sure what they did with the data. I feel the ROH needed to do it as they are heavily criticised for not engaging with their audiences

-Scottish Opera talked about asking their members what productions they wanted to be revived and which ones they wanted in new forms. Did this ever happen?

The above does sound good but I feel it is maybe a paper exercise that grabs a few headlines and pleases twits at the Arts Council. At the end of the day a decision needs to me made about productions and that comes from the top. Did Trevor Nun listen to all the negative press he got for staging all those musicals? No!

Fair enough, but that's not our theme. The artistic direction of the NT is at the heart of this discussion, not its administration. Although they're two inextricably linked factors, as audiences our prime concern has to be the quality of what is set before us.

Just as theatre followed cinema, sometime in the late fifties, and adopted the term 'producer' for the business aspect and 'director' for the artistic leadership (replacing 'producer'), so maybe it would make more sense to have a producer rather than a director at the helm of the NT, with an artistic director working along side him/her.

Or is that what the General Administrator (or whatever (s)he's called) does already? There's no personnel page on the NT website - a curious omission for a publicly funded body - unless it's tucked away somewhere I can't find it, so I don't know for certain who does what anymore.

Job

The associate producer used to be, but may not be now, Padraig Cusack (why yes, one of those Cusacks) who was in overall charge of budgetting and organising tours.

I'm not sure what organisations you're familar with, but surely no Artistic Director (not that this is Hytner's title anyway) has the luxury of making purely aesthetic decisions without any responsibility for the many different forces which subsidise and enable the organisation. This is the same theme, like it or not. Every production the NT stages, every choice they make regarding anything, must take in mind what runs the company.

The NT has precisely the kind of directorial partnership you propose in your second paragraph, Job: Director Nick Hytner is paired with an Executive Director Nick Starr. The famous Baroness McIntosh did the role for many years before that. But - like all arts organisations - all decisions (especially regarding repertoire) are also ratified by a Board. Hytner's NT goes one further by also having a cohort of practising theatrical artists - the NT Associates - who play key roles in programming. But hey, let's boot them all out because 1) we could do better and 2) they're occasionally coming up with shows almost as duff as the Anthony & Cleopatra, A Prayer For Owen Meany and Honk from the Nunn era, or Peter Pan, Remember This and Sleep With Me from the Eyre era. How very dare they.

Nick Starr. That's the name I was looking for. Funny - I couldn't get Genista out of my head (ah, Sigmund...).

No need to get shirty at the end there, theatresquirrel. Let people have their say - that's what a discussion board's all about. It isn't an Arts Council working party or a government quango; it's more of a table in the corner of a pub. For my part, I'm merely interested in writing about my dream ticket for the NT. Think of it as fantasy football, but for the theatre. Just a bit of fun, like, know whaddimean?

Job

1. the priority bookers

2. those 'who put their money where their mouth is'

3. the people on this blog
Are you kidding? Nobody on this thread has yet conveyed even slight insight into the manifold business of running a cultural organisation that must comply to government, corporate, trust and vast individual subsidies.

Theatresquirrel, [Quote]


Reply:

1: The NT has a core audienec which needs to be respected. Sure it should experiment and tackle challenging subjects, but and it's a BIG but, it is the core audience that turn up rain or shine and after good or bad reviews. There is a certain arrogance in the directorship evidenced by Mr Hytner's rant, a while back, on what he saw as the dominace of "white male critics" (Is that why we are now being overdosed with the likes of Katie Mitchell?) it's a touch of "nanny knows best" even if the general concensus is the complete opposite.

2: In short, YES!

3: It ain't rocket science and don't try to convince me it is. The role of artistic director (AD) must be influenced to some degree by the management team, but that should be as far as it goes.
If the AD makes a complete hash of it and no punters turn up for performances well then the management would clearly have to take action to sort that out and the option to remove him and appoint a new AD must be in their brief. I believe the existing AD has been in place long enough and what we need now is someone new with fresh ideas, no baggage and a respect for that core audience which keeps the NT going in the first place.

How unutterably depressing.

Why? I quite like his vision for the NT, and I think that there have been more highs than lows, even though I myself would be pleased to hear that Katie Mitchell won't be indulged with any more resources that could be better used by other directors.

Hmmm money where mouths are, eh? Well ain't it t'other way round? I am a NT supporter, go to nearly everything, so my money is right there, as much as I can afford for the NT in fact. But my mouth? No one from the NT has ever asked me what I think of shows, what facilities I would like, what I think of any of the artistic decisions, front of house talks, cabaret in the foyer, choice of ice cream..nowt. I suppose it is felt that if I don't like it I will not continue my membership. But it isn't like that with the theatre is it because you never know what gem is right around the next booking period. There has been no survey has there? Even the RSC does survey qs. Have I missed something? I would like to be asked. I would like to say my two penny worth. This board allows me to rant over the bad shows and the toilet queues; maybe the NT admin read this board. Dunno. There is precious little communication between punters and players. Yes, there are events we can go to, Jan. I have been to one or two but there is a limit to the number times you can enjoy seeing the wig department.

In his foreword to her new book, Hytner says "when I was appointed Director of the NT, it was one of my first priorities to make it a home to Katie Mitchell."
Sorry!

Because of the nature of the beast the NT should not be in the control of one person for too long, it just aint healthy - the quote above speaks volumes.