National Theatre

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 9:45am

There were a few people on the Tony Awards that once again brought up the question of "Why doesn't the U.S. have a National Theatre?" I think we've discussed this in the past, but why not bring it up again.

The last attempt was by Tony Randall. I think why his failed was because he used major stars and didn't seem to have a plan to tour the U.S. with his shows.

Should a National Theatre do a repertory season (meaning that each day is a different play) or should they do one play at a time? Should they have a regular company of actors or hire on a production basis?

Updated On: 6/11/07 at 09:45 AM

[Born To Reign]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 9:48am

Because America's too divided. No offense to anyone from the middle of the country, but people there would demand that if it was their nation theatre, too, they want a say. And they don't want plays about how bad conservatism is, or the involvement of all us homos and freaks.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 10:43am

"Because America's too divided."

I don't accept that as the reason. We have PBS which is sort of a National Television station in that the government kicks in part of the operating cost.

[Born To Reign]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 10:48am

But when do you ever see a liberal slant on PBS of the kind you see in professional theatre? I don't think this is a bad thing at all, I'm very liberal myself

Antiques Roadshow is hardly great quality TV that puts a mirror to our society

[musicallover2008]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 11:04am

I'm from the midwest and I think a national theatre would be amazing. Would I be able to go to it very often? No. Do I care if it is plays or musicals? No. I don't think you generalization of the people of middle America is fair. Until you come and see the growing theatre scene in the midwest don't generalize. Obviously if we had a national theatre, it would have a board of people through out the country so everyone could have a say. It would be easy in my opinion for a national theatre to tour as well.

[Born To Reign]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 11:06am

Take a look at the last election. See where all the red is. I obviously don't think everyone from middle America is the same. But look at the censorship of Spring Awakening last night, think about how many angry calls CBS would have gotten had they not been censored. Would a national theatre be under the same rules?

And where do you think most of those calls would have come from...

[musicallover2008]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 11:36am

I'll give you that the the midwest is more conservative, but I don't think most of the calls would have came from midwetern people. I think there are many other places that would have called in as well. I think it was a choice that was made as a publicity decision. The tony awards in my oppinion is the best place for Broadway shows to advertise country wide. So in my opinion, the way SA censored themselves last night, was partly a publicity move. It let's people know what to expect, but will likely bring other people in because they want to know more about a show that censored itself. I think it was a great publicity move.

[Born To Reign]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 11:39am

I WOULD agree, I just think they should have made it more obvious that they censored themselves. I wish they had just done the regular version and told CBS to bleep it. THAT would have stirred up more publicity. As you can read on other threads, a lot of people didn't realize they changed lyrics and didn't know they were covering their mouths during Totally F*CKed.

[musicallover2008]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 11:45am

I can agree with you on the point that if they wanted people to know it was censored they should have done something else. Back to the original topic of the thread now. I think it would be amazing to have a national theatre. I think that many people in the country would get behind it. I believe that it would sell very well and would be a huge success.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 11:53am

I think that a National Theatre would have to tour the country. That was my problem with Tony Randall's attempt. You really can't call yourself a "National" theatre and only play Broadway with well known stars.

[jv92]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 12:07pm

We should have a National Theatre, but it should not tour the country. This is not meant to offend the people that don't live outside of New York though. Come visit us! If you want to see the best of the nation's theatre, come to New York to a National Theatre.
I think Lincoln Center should think about building one and I think there is no man more qualified for the job of director than Mr. Jack O'Brien.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 12:17pm

"We should have a National Theatre, but it should not tour the country."

Then why call it a National Theatre? The purpose of a national theatre would be to bring good plays and productions to people who normally can't get to New York

[jv92]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 12:18pm

What about the people in England that can't get to London?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 12:30pm

"What about the people in England that can't get to London?"

And let's also not forget the other organizations that tour like the Royal Shakespeare Company.


Touring Schedule of National Theatre in London

Updated On: 6/11/07 at 12:30 PM

[jv92]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 12:31pm

I stand corrected. I was unaware of that. We should tour. I just wanted to copy London.

[Weez]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 2:34pm

WTF? Of course a US National Theatre should tour. The UK National Theatre does all the time! :P

[musicallover2008]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 2:41pm

Like I said before. I think this an amazing idea. I hope that it works out.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 2:57pm

Should they do one play at a time or do several in a week?

[musicallover2008]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 3:28pm

I think it depends on what space they use. I think a variety would be great. They could run a show for a while. Then they could do a reperetoire.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 9:53pm

Bump it like a strumpet.