Last year it was announced in June. Does anyone know when the winter season for London 09/10 is likely to be announced, or even better have any information as to what is transferring?

Thanks

kjb

They have clad the tower in brick and huge plate glass doors are in place; scaffolding still up but it looks like it's all coming along nicely . No idea when they will issue booking news but thought you would like to know that the theatre is looking promising.
Not so the current repertoire which I will post about in plays thread.

What is transferring ? Something with a TV star in it - that's what the commercial producers who own the RSC brand in London demand. So, you can bet Twelfth Night will arrive. Still, looking on the bright side, at least we won't have "The Drunks" inflicted on us.

As a London resident I feel that we are being appallingly short-changed by the RSC. I recall seeing dozens of RSC productions at the Barbican and a visit to an RSC production was a readily available option for much of the year.

Now we are apparently meant to expect a small number of "commercial" productions, most of which are extremely difficult to get into.

I know it has been said elsewhere, but the RSC is the NATIONAL company preserving the Shakespeare heritage and I think it is now becoming a marginal almost provincial company with no worthwhile National exposure.

Does the RSC still find time to do that tour to that American University every year? Two or three weeks I think it used to be.

hey we used to get the RSC in the provincial towns, touring to sports centres, at least you get some RSC shows?!

I agree entirely - the lack of provincial touring was also in my mind because the RSC is supposed to be a NATIONAL company - not a local rep based in a pleasant Midlands Town.

The taxpayers of the country need to know exactly where the public subsidy is being spent - it certainly isn't going on touring.

Keep your powder dry: wait until there is something to see. You can live without the present offerings.

This is an interesting discussion. thank you for sharing

demande simulation pret personnel en ligne - Pret personnel en ligne et de comparer les meilleurs taux afin de... La demande de prêt personnelen lignedemande simulation pret personnel en ligne

Especially as the basis of the Arts Council grant they get is that they should maintain BASES in both London and Stratford.

They came to dear old Oxford with Othello...not sure I loved the production but I appreciated the sentiment!

but Oxford is hardly the provinces - they used to come to Ellemere Port and other such smaller towns who didnt have a theatre that close by - brilliant now the only northern city they tend to come to is Salford 50miles away!

That's a wee bit unfair.
Last year, Hamlet was hard to get into in London, and Stratford.
Midsummer Nights Dream and The Tragedy of Thomas Hobbes, which both transferred to London, weren't. The latter wasn't very commercial either.

Dream was easy to get into because we'd all seen the same production a couple of years earlier when it was last in London - the fact they chose to bring the same production (of a popular play) into London rather than something different/new shows how they are driven by commercial considerations.

On small-scale touring, this was specifically stopped by Michael Boyd in favour of touring productions to larger provincial theatres. Whether this has been successful or not I don't know. On the basis of their failed Plymouth residency I doubt it - filling a sports hall with a couple of hunderd people is probably an easier task.

Is it too much against the grain of the conversation to go back to "when will they announce the London 09/10 season?" wondering? One presumes they are coming to London once they're done up in Newcastle? Where might they go? The Novello and the New London are pretty booked up. What productions might they transfer? Twelfth Night seems a fairly obvious bet, due to the relatively starry cast, but what else? Is it too soon for The Winter's Tale again? Am I going to get a second chance at As You Like It after missing it in Stratford? What are the odds that A Tender Thing will find a life outside Newcastle?

Is the building work running completely to schedule? Is Twelfth Night going to be the very last Shakespeare play I see in the Courtyard before they dismantle it? (Nothing against Twelfth Night, but I've never been to any other theatre in Stratford; it's going to feel wrong not having the Courtyard any more.)

The Courtyard will be around for another 2 years after next year if permission is granted, due to a gradual introduction of the new theatre.

Rumour no 2 for opening of Swan is L'Morte d'Arthur (excuse spelling, can't remember), not sure if this has been said elsewhere, apologies if has.

Though based in Stratford myself, I agree over London being short changed, and totally disagree about The Drunks, thought it was actually very good.

A question to anyone who knows what's been going on in Stratford: they haven't done anything to the Swan, have they? Has it just been closed during while the new main theatre's being built?

I've only been in the Courtyard twice and both times I was excruciatingly uncomfortable, and I had a really bad view. So I am hoping for better times in the new theatre.... Was looking through old photos the other day and came across some photos from years ago, the first time I went to Stratford aged 8, on a guided tour around the stage of the main house, walking across the beautiful set of a production of Twelfth Night. I feel very old looking at them, especially since the theatre no longer exists...

I've found the Courtyard to be more comfortable and have better sightlines from a wider variety of seats than many other theatres I've been in. Even on the high skinny chairs in strange places. How odd.

I agree...I like the gallery a lot and find the view from there very good

The Swan will remain unaltered, some cosmetic work will be done

As September is almost upon us when they make these kind of announcements the RSC will presumably issue a statement detailing both the 09/10 London season and the 10 Stratford season, as has been said before we already know pretty much was is going to be in the Main House, whether there will be anything going on in the Swan remains to be seen, I dont see why it shouldnt be up and running again by the Spring but Boyd seems overcautious in how he reopens the theatres. I dont think we will see a complete three theatre Stratford season until 2012.

The details of the the 2010 London season appeared briefly in the Evening Standard yesterday (September 2nd). I can only imagine that they must have broken press release embargo. On Stratford 2011 is the 60th anniversary of the creation of the RSC so I imagine the Swan will be back in action by then.

I wonder what theatre is going to host the season as they have a agreement with Delfont Mackintosh and with The Novello housing Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Gielgud housing Avenue Q, The Noel Coward housing Calendar Girls and The Wyndham's housing Shawshank Redemption, I'm guessing that either the RSC opt for a different theatre outside of the Delfont Mackintosh group like they did in 2007 with King Lear and The Seagull at The New London Theatre or one of the shows at a Delfont Mackintosh theatre closes early which at the moment I would say Calendar Girls.

So now we know - Twelfth Night will be the ONLY main house production trasferring to London this Winter.

How the Arts Council lets them get away with this I don't know.

Further information to come involving new plays.

Two new plays at Hampstead ? Yawn.

How very disappointing. I am very disappointed. Read this and tell me you're not disappointed.

http://www.rsc.org.uk/press/420_8791.aspx

Well, it is more than "disappointing" isn't it ? £15.5 million quid a year to maintain bases in Stratford and London and this is the best they can do.

As for Hampstead (£ 914,000 a year) why are they allowed to act as a reciving house for productions from another subsidised theatre ? Aren't these new plays effectively being subsidised twice ?

About time the RSC's grant was cut to the same level as other purely provincial theatres.

David Greig does have a good track record. So fingers crossed. Twelfth Night was obviously the one for Xmas and it should be good, reliable Doran directed. I'll be honest Weez, I see most , if not all of the RSC output and the As You Like It wasn't that good. The Winter's Tale was actually I felt better than the one at The Old Vic, certainly in terms of pathos and the performance of the Hermione, especially the last scene. But not really special.

But let's see what the new company and the new building will bring. I am very hopeful. I know, as Jan, is always reminding us that the RSC is supposed to bring productions into London but what with the cost and the fact that Stratford isn't so inaccessible [ albeit weird train timetables ] I can't see that they need to to. They will always find a way of bringing in the big star shows, like Lear was.

I can get to Hampstead ok so will prob book for these.

Goodness, even the David Tennant Hamlet had to share the season with some of their other Stratford productions. So this Victor Meldrew Twelfth Night must be even better than that.

What "cost" ? They get £15.5 million a year from the Arts Council. The Donmar managed to run four major productions in the West End (on a break-even basis) this year and their grant is only £527,000.

On what basis should they get so much more money than (say) Sheffield Theatres ? They are just a regional theatre doing a hanful of productions a year.

I agree - the amount of regional companies that have lost funding that produce shows of a higher standard, there are nearly 300 people employed at the RSC why?

They are doing nothing special or providing a wow factor anymore, they have stop provincial touring which was one of their big selling point ten years ago. The RSC seems to be a new vanity ground for pretentious artistic directors with no artistic integrity!

I can't wait for the peer assements to come back into Arts Council funding, as there will be some very upset divas!

I have been advised that the RSC will be making a further announcement about their London presence on 30th September which will contain new information. Let's wait and see.

They're re-wiring it, I think re-upholstering it, renewing the stage lift which apparently hasn't worked for some years, moving the public safety systems (fire alarms, for example) onto a common system with the new main house.

How about repositioning the centre stalls seats so they actually face the stage instead of the audience ?

You ask so much!

Add a few more ladies' loos???? Dream on.

May I ask Jan a question concerning the RSC programme when they were based at the Barbican?

What was a typical ANNUAL schedule of performances? By this I mean how many Main House productions and performances, and how many productions/performances in the Pit?

Roughly for how many weeks per year were there performances by the RSC?

Thanks for any help on this - my memory is qualitative only - what production I personally saw etc.

At the start they used to just transfer the entire Stratford season to London, so the 11 month Stratford season then used to run for 11 months in London (with a few weeks for change-over) - about 4-5 main house productions and 4-5 Pit productions. When the Swan opened they crammed those into the Pit too. It used to be very unusual for a main house Shakespeare not to transfer (it happened a few times). In addition they used to stage new productions in London. I think even when Adrian Noble went to 6 months only in the Barbican they used to transfer almost everything. It is startling looking at old programmes from the period, the RSC could have 20-30 productions running simultaneously in rep in their 5 permanent theatres and in the West End at any time. As I always point out, their grant in real terms was about the same then as it is now.

I live in Birmingham, but have a lot of family in London. For all my 44 years its been obvious that the M1, M6 and now M40 only run in one direction, and the same appears to apply to theatre. It seems to go without saying that the `National' Theatre is nothing of the sort, and transfers away from their South Bank base are few and far between, and it also goes without saying that people in London are incapable of venturing outside the M25 without oxygen masks and armed guards. From large parts of London Stratford is only 90 minutes away, the RSC have even gone to the lengths of running special trains, and there are multiple --- rarely full --- Saturday matinees of all the productions.

Rather than having to make productions portable, in some cases partially recast them (as used to happen) and in any event have to run two ensembles, why not just say that you have to visit Stratford for the RSC just as you have to visit the South Bank for the National? I go to concerts and plays in London on a regular basis, and simply drive back to Birmingham afterwards (I usually park at Stanmore): it is a total mystery to me as to why that's practical, while Londoners can't do the reverse. The easier reverse, in fact, as Stratford is 25 miles closer to London.

And in any event, Londoners have the NT and the West End. Why begrudge the rest of the country a few treats? ENO don't tour any more, for example, preferring to stay in London, I don't see cries that the Proms ought to travel around the country even though they are massively subsidised out of license fee money, etc, etc. Given the massive cultural benefits that living in London brings, and the huge concentration of Arts Council funding (just how many symphony orchestras does a city need?) the complaints that the RSC is getting too much money seem to be rather lacking in grace.

Not sure how many more times I have to point this out, but here goes again. The terms of the RSC's Arts Council grant is that they should maintain BASES in BOTH Stratford and London - that is why their grant is disproportionately so much higher (by an order of magnitude) than any regional theatre. If they want to confine themselves to Stratford then that is fine but their grant should be at least halved in that case. You will never find me complaining here that (say) Theatre Clywd or Machester Royal Exchange productions never transfer to London - that is not in the mandate of those companies, but it IS in the mandate of the RSC.

Lordy! Does anyone think Jan's got an axe to grind with the RSC's funding? Jan - what's your source about ACE funding being dependant on the RSC maintaining BASES (your caps) in both London and Stratford? The narrative in the ACE's funding statement quotes their region as "West Midlands" and the narrative reads "The Royal Shakespeare Company is the world's leading classical theatre company. It is committed to presenting Shakespeare in a vibrant and living context and developing new writing alongside classical works."

We should also be reminded here that the RSC's London Season at the Barbican was made possible, in a large part, thanks to additional funding from the Corporation of London - something that they gave up when they moved out of the Barbican making London transfers arguably more tricky than they might previously have been.

I think there's some confusion in this thread about whether they're a regional company or a national company. Perhaps they're a National Company based in the Regions - ahem, as they always have been! The National Theatre gets £19m from the ACE and gets away with being a National company based in London (as opposed to a National company based in Stratford) with much more limited touring and nation-wide presence than the RSC has ever put out.

The RSC is an organisation of national importance and as much as I admire the work of some of the regional theatres mentioned in this thread the comparison is irrelevant.

I am sure we will see an ongoing evolution of the RSC's work around the country - not in the least once the current building project is finished which is probably taking up quite alot of people's time and energy at the moment!

I realise there is a knee-jerk anti-London bias which is displayed by some of those not blessed enough to live there, but if you look carefully you will see I am not suggesting that the RSC should do less work in Stratford or less touring, just that they should fulfill the terms of their ACE mandate to maintain a base in London too. Let me pose it in a different way - how come the run-down to near-zero in their activity in London has not resulted in an increase of activity in Stratford and touring ? (They are doing less touring too, actually).

(The grant they got from the Barbican was less than 5% of their total revenue, incidentally).

hehe - there goes that "fulfill the terms of their ACE mandate" again.... and the source for this statement is....?

as an exceptionally-blessed resident of the Barbican I would have thought that I would have had the biggest axe to grind on this subject but I'm kinda over it in favour of the bigger picture.....

[by my reckoning £1.7m p.a. is a pretty large amount, in real terms, when it comes to production and management costs even if it is "less than 5% of revenue"....incidentally...]

btw - thank you for your "to put it another way" - an evaluation of value for money when compared to overall activity is a much more measured way of looking at it than "If they want to confine themselves to Stratford then that is fine but their grant should be at least halved in that case". :-)

Arts Council funding documents - albeit not from 2009 where they have conveniently dropped the London base phrase even from the summary, as you interestingly note.

this is where i got my quote from

http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/regularfunding.php

you?

hehe - nicely edited...

The document I have is not available on-line any more. Still, it is not just me who thinks the London base is a condition of their funding, a few years ago they managed to fob this lot off with protestations of their good intentions.

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/past_cte...ec10item07a.rtf

Actually, the Arts Council submission to that London Assembly inquiry is rather interesting:

"The Arts Council’s funding agreement with the RSC does not make a specific requirement that the company performs in London, as this is considered core activity, neither is there any funding ring-fenced for performances in the capital. This is in keeping with all Arts Council funding policy, where core activity does not have particular funds ring fenced for it."

So, performing in London is a "core activity" for them, just like performing in Stratford, so it is not explicitly stated as a requirement, and the level of funding associated with it is not specified either.

So, I think that clarifies the matter, and gives a nice large loophole for the RSC to escape through. So, my argument vreally should be that they are not doing enough in London to fulfill the "core activity" criteria.

indeed - a very interesting document - i'd encourage anyone who's following this debate (is anyone still reading?) to read it in full - I remember the time of this select committee well and, in many respects, the RSC came over very well

it was, however, six years ago and that's a long time in the arts funding world - indeed the landscape has shifted significantly since then - as it is sure to again - probably soon

indeed Jan - a loophole was made use of (and has now become gospel) - probably a necessity to allow the company the flexibility it desparately needed at at the time - who knows, the ACE might have even come to the opinion, at the time, that the RSC were worth the investment wherever they performed - art for art's sake perhaps? who'd have thought..

nice doing business with you....

I have been involved in a couple of London Assemby enquiries (not this one) and the final reports have been similarly informative, interesting, and entirely ineffectual.

Let's see what RSC announce next week about London.

I don't quite understand what you want. A base implies, surely, distinctive productions? The operation of what would amount to two companies, with occasional exchanges of productions. If what you want is just all the Stratford productions to come to London because Londoners can't be expected to go up the M40, that's not a `base in London', it's just a one-stop tour: Newcastle, but for a longer period (although of course they've stopped touring main house productions to there, largely).

There are problems even to this. For one, unless someone's going to do major surgery on a big theatre, is there a thrust stage space seating a thousand or more in London? I'd abandoned the main house at Stratford, pretty much, after a terrible Griff Rhys Jones directed Twelfth Night deep in the Noble regime, when you couldn't hear a word, while I'm seeing even things I don't really care about at the Courtyard because it's a wonderful, intimate space. Even if you disagree, and many do, that die is cast: the new main house is thrust stage, as is The Swan. The Histories were taken into the Roundhouse, but is there a practical space in London other than that which could take future RSC productions without redesigning the whole set? For two, one thing Boyd is trying to do is have a flexible company, rather than the fairly fixed system they had in the past where pretty much a fixed combination of people from within the company would work together on a set of productions. Having Greg Hicks in a two-line part in The Grainstore is a good thing, and that wouldn't happen otherwise.

Yes there is. Can't remember the name but it's quite distinctive because it's in the middle of a posh estate in the City and has an oblong-shaped pond next door to it. Something beginning with B...

There are a few theatres that could be easily converted to a similar thrust stage configuration - Barbican, New London, Old Vic, Roundhouse.

Leaving aside what I want, let's look at what the RSC want - what they REALLY want (but are too scared to say explicitly) is for someone to fund the building of a Courtyard equivalent somewhere in Central London. However, as they got a custom-built theatre exactly to their specifications last time, and walked away from it, the chances are remote.