|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
The RSC Saga ContinuesDateline: 12th May, 2002 "In the red corner: Adrian Noble, Lord Alexander, the Culture select committee. In the blue corner: members of the company (including, we are told, Gregory Doran), many long-standing RSC supporters." Yes, it's the Big Fight: the heavyweight championship of Warwickshire, a contest of many, many rounds. At stake, the future of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Since 25th May, 2001, when the first public statement about the proposed changes was made, there have been acrimonious exchanges between those in favour and those against the proposals, which culminated in April with Adrian Noble's announcement that he would leave the company at the end of his contract, in March 2003. Clearly these disputes over policy had quickly escalated into bitterness and personal attacks , for Noble now tells us that his wife had been sworn at in the street and we learn, too, that there had been a backstage poster campaign which had exacerbated already high feelings. It would appear that the RSC has not been a happy ship for some time now. But has the "anti" campaign achieved anything, apart from persuading Noble it is time for him to go? The rebuilding of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre is still on the agenda, so we learn this week. The agreement with the Barbican has ended and that venue is now in the throes of reinventing itself. The new, much more fluid pattern of London venues is already underway. So what is left? The RSC "academy", based at the Other Place (and its consequent loss as a performance venue) has not been mentioned, nor has the proposed use of short-term contracts to attract "stars", with, as the anti lobby would suggest, its deleterious effect on the rep-style, ensemble company. To many RSC supporters it is the latter which is the real bugbear. Except for those who are driven by nostalgia, the rebuilding of the RST, with all the problems it causes both backstage and front of house, is no loss but a gain, and, assuming that the Barbican can make a life for itself post-RSC, does it really matter where in London the company performs, so long as it has its presence in the capital? In fact, the use of such unusual spaces as the Roundhouse seems to have unleashed some creative juices! The real worry of the RSC supporters (to judge from the correspondence I've received, at any rate) is the effect upon the company itself, the idea of the big names parachuting in for a short time and then vanishing again. Where does this leave those who have committed themselves to the company for a long period? Are the plum parts to go to the "visitors", with the company purely the supporting actors? Will they be the support to Ralph Fiennes one month, then to Ken Brannagh the next? If, as we must assume from the depth of feeling evidenced by the poster campaign and the personal abuse of Joanne Pearce, these are the fears of the members of the current company, the RSC management must act swiftly either to put minds at rest if the changes are to go ahead or to make it known that this particular plank of the reorganisation will not be implemented. If this is something that is to be left to Noble's successor to decide, then they should make that known too. Those in any field who have been through major changes in their work, or who have seen massive management changes, know how stressful the interim can be and work invariably suffers. People start to worry and, to be safe, look for other jobs. Tempers can fray, patience declines. Then there is the huge band of supporters who identify with the company, who feel it is their RSC. Many are already disenchanted - I suspect that the personal attacks on Ms Pearce came from them rather than company members - and to alienate them would be very foolish indeed. As a trustee of a theatre, I know how easy it is to forget that you are merely a representative of the theatre's audience and to start thinking in an "us and them" way. The danger with the RSC situation, I feel, is that the acrimony could drive the governors into this very unhealthy attitude. That way lies disaster. As former Culture Secretary Chris Smith said a couple of weeks ago, the governors must act quickly and in a level-headed manner. They must also take into account the strength of feeling in the company and among its supporters and give very careful consideration to the way ahead. They must not allow a knee-jerk reaction to opposition to drive them into an entrenched position. If, at the end of the day, they sincerely believe that Noble's plans are what is best for the RSC, then they have a major job of persuasion and education to do. To say "We have decided: that's it!" could damage the company for a long time to come. Why not share your opinions about this on our Forum? Articles Indices: |
|
|