Talk:Almeida Theatre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Location[edit]

The sentence containing "then-unfashionable part of Islington near the Kings Cross railway station" seems to be geographically and historically incorrect. Whereas the temporary home of the Almeida Theatre in 2002 was in King's Cross Coach Station, literally in the shadow of the railway station, the permanent theatre, the subject of this article, is almost exactly a mile away in Islington. It's historically incorrect as well, as the area has been "gentrified" since the 1960s . I propose to change it, subject to other editors' views. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, and more accurate. Kbthompson (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ástor Piazzolla[edit]

Ástor Piazzolla's 1984 appearance has been added to the section dealing with the foundation of the theatre, which took place five years before. There seems little reason to single out this performance for inclusion at all and I am suggesting deletion, subject to other editors' views. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the mention of Piazzolla's appearance is not well-placed within the article. However, given his importance in the music world and the fact that he gave very few concerts in London during his career I suggest we keep the mention but consider creating a new section - there is after all a large gap between the Foundation and 1990s section. David(Talk • Contribs) 17:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply (and, while you're here, apologies for my clumsy blunder on Piazzolla's talk page). It's just that in the venue's thirty-year existence as a theatre the one-week appearance of one musician, however deserving of wider recognition, doesn't seem to warrant a mention, yet alone a section to himself, in this article: it throws the piece out of balance. The content here is about the theatre and its work; material relating to Ástor Piazzolla should be detailed on his page, as indeed you have done with this piece of information. The "Notable productions" section here is for work produced by the theatre itself, not for an act that was booked to the venue for a week over twenty years ago (this is not to diminish Piazzolla's importance in the musical world, as you indicate above). I still advocate deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suggest, of course, that he deserves his own section but rather that a new section covering the 1980's, could include a mention of his appearance as an indication of the diversity of work, both musical and theatrical, that has been presented over the years. Incidently I don't see any mention of the summer opera seasons. I would suggest that the importance of the theatre is not solely due to its theatrical productions. David(Talk • Contribs) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one mention of the summer opera season (see "In Audi's tradition") but it could do with some expansion. Was this what you had in mind when you suggested the new section? I may have mistaken your point, believing that you meant a new section for Piazzolla. A new section expanding on the opera season would benefit the article, but as the annual season comprises original productions by Almeida Opera, how would Piazzolla fit in? --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a new section to cover the 1980s in which Piazzolla might have a mention and the summer operas would certainly be included. David(Talk • Contribs) 20:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I incline more to your earlier suggestion of "indication of the diversity of work". I don't have much knowledge of this, but it sounds like a very good idea. There is scope for a 1980s section as well, but would there be enough material for commentary on the developments during this period? A list of productions, competing with the "notable" section at the end, might well detract. Incidentally, it's bedtime in my time zone and I won't be reading any further comments until Saturday. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studio theatre[edit]

With a capacity of 325 the Almeida is not strictly a Studio Theatre which is defined as one seating 80 - 200. Shall we remove the designation or modify the definition?? David(Talk • Contribs) 12:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For one a studio theatre is a more impromptu affair with temporary, or moveable, seating placed in what is basically a "rehearsal studio" whence studio comes from, and not a permanent theatre with fitted seats and a circle. --Amedeo Felix (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I applied the original template - so, my fault. Last time I went to the Almeida it was before the revamp. There was no permanent seating and the performance space had no stage, no proscenium, etc. I don't know about the current layout, but I thought the revamp had sought to retain the character of the original performance space - while improving the front of house and providing proper dressing rooms. I agree that 350 is moving into small theatre territory, but there's a big grey area between a permanent stage with fixed lighting and seating and a completely flexible performance space. I thought the Almeida still aspired to 'black box theatre', but it's probably worth revisiting. (Maybe the audience no longer 'suffers for their art'!). Kbthompson (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looking at the Almeida website, there remains no stage and the rear of the performance area is still the back wall - and it still defines itself as a 'found space'. To my mind, it is the wiki definition of studio theatre that is deficient - but I'm open to offers. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come one. The stage of the Olivier Theatre at the Royal National Theatre is just as "flexible". WOuld you call that a "studio"? Of course not. Studios are places like Cottesloe Theatre at the NT, Donmar Warehouse, Arcola Theatre, etc.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make the point for me, the Cottesloe holds 400, and the Arcola, 360 - the Other Place is was much larger. The Olivier is essentially a semi-circular thrust stage through a very large proscenium - yes, I have been there when it's 'in the round' but that was a major structural undertaking. As I said, there's a big grey area - particularly with modern theatre construction. The Almeida website describes this as a 'found space' in its artistic vision - to my mind that supports the notion of a studio theatre - but I agree, the definition on that wiki page is deficient and this particular space is probably at the boundaries of such a description. Let's put it another way - how would you describe it? Kbthompson (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep it to the most basic of simply calling it a theatre, MAYBE fringe theatre. I think studio really refers to very informal spaces, and the Aleida is far from that. It's productions always have full sets and the players are in full theatrical costume, while my experience of what constitutes a studio theatre is far more relaxed shall we say - as if you were watching a read through rather than a full blown production. As I said, temporary seating (even no seating at times), just a bare space and either no sets or very rough and ready. Almeida's none of those things - it's a theatre pure and simple. Found space sounds to me like someone getting overly flowery - you may as well say ANY theatre is "found" and then transformed by the insertion of sets and application lighting sound and action. Know what I mean? Studio is simply superfluous and misleading...--Amedeo Felix (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe is simply too fuzzy - and more associated with productions on the outskirts of a theatre festival. The last time I was at the Almeida, the set was just a pile of dirt and a tree branch ... the audience sat on stacker chairs and some on the floor - so, it may well have changed considerably. I'd have no trouble with accepting 'theatre' - but I was hoping for something a little more specific. I don't see 'studio theatre' as verging on a read through - it is much more the reducto absurdum of Peter Brooks - and to some extent Peter Hall's - black box; "the play's the thing" sort of theatre.
It would actually be helpful if we could reference the type of theatre to someone like Billington, or another critic - rather than our own interpretation. Kbthompson (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote. I said drop all adjectives and call it simply a theatre (my mention of fringe was just that and no more - it IS fring because anything outside the West End is fringe, but whatever...). How long ago was it you were there??? They have normal, bolted to the floor, standard theatre seats, and have had for some number of years now since the redevelopment. Please, let's drop all use of adjective in this case and refer to it simply as a theatre...--Amedeo Felix (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dating query[edit]

Pierre Audi (according to his wikipedia article) was born in 1957, and lived in Lebanon and Paris before moving with his family to England aged 17 (i.e. c.1974). Yet, according to this article, he "acquired the derelict building" in Islington, for conversion to a theatre, in 1972. Really? As a 15-year old Parisian schoolboy? I know it's cited, and that's more or less what the source says (the building "was only rediscovered in 1972 when Pierre Audi and his associates, realising the potential for an extraordinary performance venue, renovated [it]"), but is this plausible? Some further research and reworking necessary. GrindtXX (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Almeida Theatre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Almeida_Theatre&oldid=1198470150"