to think its bad form as RSC artistic director to cast yourself in a load of plays?

[rumtumtuggeris]

The Royal Shakespeare Company has two joint artistic directors Daniel Evans & Tamara Harvey.

Dan Evans was most recently director of Sheffield Theatres for seven years and then seven at the Chichester Festival theatre. He was previously an actor but has not acted for a long time.

In the new season, as well as directing plays he has cast himself in the lead title role of Edward II (Marlowe), and in 4:48 Psychosis (Sarah Kane) recreating a role he acted in in the original production

He's given interviews talking about his "wants": -

"As well as being gay, he and Edward are both leaders. “I think good leadership is about authenticity.” Another caveat: “I know that’s become a silly buzzword. But you have to ultimately be yourself. I wanted to play a role that allows me to reveal myself. Which sounds indulgent.”
(From the Guardian)

I think if you have the responsibility of a job like being artistic director for such large and respected creator of arts that it is really a bit off to start putting yourself into leads in big plays. It's a conflict of interest in a way that directing plays (as artistic director) really isn't. It's basically taking advantage of your position. To put it another way, what are the chances of Greg Doran (previous artistic director) casting this man as a lead in Edward II? Zero.

If it turns out to be a brilliant production and he is great and it doesn't detract from the demands of the artistic director job, then I would probably revise my opinion.

Right now though it's really put me off the RSC because it seems to be to be a bit 'dirty' and lacking in artistic integrity to do this.

There’s something that doesn’t quite sit right with that, isn’t there?

I think I would feel differently if he was more “known” as an actor and there would have been a reasonable chance that an independent director would have also cast him in that role.

@ViolinsPlayGentlyOn I'm glad I'm not the only one. I'm also quite surprised that there doesn't seem any questioning or comment about this in media reports.

If I was interviewing him as a journalist, I'd definitely ask something like 'aren't you worried about criticism that by casting yourself in a lead role you are taking advantage of your position?"

He's no Laurence Olivier.

I agree. I also think acting isn't about revealing yourself at all, it's literally the opposite. The centering of himself and his identity....it doesn't sound indulgent, it is indulgent.

I understand that this could feel like exploiting a privileged position but I’m going to say it’s more layered than that. Daniel Evans is definitely ‘known’ as a successful actor within theatre, even if not in TV or film. There’s also a tradition of actor-managers, especially in theatres that are built around Shakespeare: Mark Rylance acted in loads of productions when he was AD at the Globe. And I’m sure that Daniel Evans taking on some acting roles would have been a big part of his application for the position!

He's in no way comparable to Mark Rylance. Before he became director at the Globe, Mark Rylance was a really well known and respected actor. He had played Hamlet at the RSC for example - ie. rated as and cast as a classical leading actor. He won best actor awards very early in his career like an Olivier for Shakespearean performances.

I'd never heard of Dan Evans as an actor; he was not a big name. If you look at what he has been in previously, he is not a leading role person. There is no way he'd be cast as Hamlet or a lead under previous artistic directors. Whether he is a good actor, an average actor or a bad actor, he is definitely not a known and rated lead classical actor. In other words, he wouldn't have got that role if he hadn't put himself into it.

His previous RSC roles are things like Lysander (Midsummer Nights Dream) Boy (Henry V) , Lorenzo (Merchant of Venice), Ariel (Tempest). In other words, he was not being cast in leading roles like Hamlet or Macbeth. It was all just smaller 'bit part', supporting roles - and this is over about 15 years. He became Sheffield Theatres director in 2005.

That's the point. Mark Rylance was being cast in leading roles anyway for years. Like Laurence Olivier or Kenneth Branagh an objectively highly rated actor who is in that tradition of actor/director/manager. Daniel Evans was not being cast at that level therefore the overall look of it is he is casting himself in a leading role taking advantage of his position.

There are a lot of very very good actors who could have been cast as Edward II.

I mean, sure, there are always lots of very good actors who could also have been cast in any role. And I agree Daniel Evans is not as big a name or talent as an actor as Mark Rylance. But he’s won two Olivier awards and he’s played many leading roles, and Artistic Director positions aren’t just about directing plays. I’d be quite excited about seeing him as Edward II, although more interested in seeing the production of 4.48 Psychosis with the original cast!

He’s no Laurence Olivier, but he has won two Oliviers, he’s hardly unknown! He also won the Chair at the Eistedfodd and is 51, so not a spring chicken. If he does a good job then surely that’s all that matters?

He's won Oliviers for musicals! He's not well known as a classical actor and has no track record at all in big leads in drama - or indeed anything really for years.

The point is not whether he's capable of grinding out an OK performance in a leading classical role, the point is that he would never have got that leading role if he weren't artistic director.

It's abusing a power position.

Is it? You just seem not to like him and diminish his achievements. There are checks and balances, he’s not done anything wrong at all. Bit scoffy about his Oliviers too… people can perform across mediums. I’ve seen him several times in Shakespeare and he’s been bloody excellent. Which is where my opinion comes from. Have you ever seen him perform?

I did slightly raise my eyebrows at this but then it’s not like the RSC attracts big names these days. I first started going to see their productions in the late 80s, when actors like Harriet Walter, Fiona Shaw, Brian Cox and Roger Allam would do full-year seasons at Stratford. Things have changed a lot since then and Evans seems no less experienced than many actors who are cast in main roles at the RSC these days.

I think he and Tamara Harvey are doing a great job so far. Things seem really energised now after the dullness and lack of ambition of the previous era. I hope they can sustain the level of programming and production quality of their first year in the role.

Totally agree.

I first started going to see their productions in the late 80s, when actors like Harriet Walter, Fiona Shaw, Brian Cox and Roger Allam would do full-year seasons at Stratford.

It was a run as a repertory theatre back then. So they'd have a company for the year and all the plays would be cast from the company. Now they cast play by play mostly. There is less of 'a company' for the year.

Yes, and the repertory system yielded better results, in my view. It’s a shame it ended. Apparently actors don’t want to spend a year in Stratford. But the main point I was making is that they used to have a permanent company of top actors in the past. Now it’s quite common for the casts of RSC productions to be less experienced. The actors who have been cast as the leads for Much Ado are not experienced classical actors either. Nor was the most recent actress to play Viola. They all have about as much classical experience as Evans, or less.

Yes, and the repertory system yielded better results, in my view. It’s a shame it ended. Apparently actors don’t want to spend a year in Stratford.

I agree with you. I think it's a big problem for theatre now generally. It used to be a lead at the RSC was a Big Deal. Career making. Now young actors just follow the money and want a Netflix series with all the fame and brand opportunities that brings. Theatre is what film stars when they don't need money and feel like some hobby time do on Broadway and West End with varying degrees of success. Exhibit A: Sigourney Weaver.

But the main point I was making is that they used to have a permanent company of top actors in the past. Now it’s quite common for the casts of RSC productions to be less experienced. The actors who have been cast as the leads for Much Ado are not experienced classical actors either. Nor was the most recent actress to play Viola. They all have about as much classical experience as Evans, or less.

I'm not saying otherwise. I saw Freema Agyeman in Twelfth Night (she is playing Beatrice) and she was really very good. I gather, although I don't know her, she has quite a high profile from her tv/film work.

The lack of classical experience is a different point though because it's not unusual for 'new' /unknown actors who are brilliant to be cast at the RSC. Kenneth Branagh and Antony Sher were unknown once. It's not a new thing for the RSC to give someone relatively untested but very talented a big 'classical' break.

What I'm saying here is that if you are an artistic director, that's a huge job and a big responsibility. You should not be using that position to put yourself into a leading role UNLESS you are in the Kenneth Branagh/Olivier/Rylance league. Concentrate on the Artistic Director job and if you are good enough and want to act, do that when you've finished or don't take the bloody job in the first place and go back to auditioning. It's not a two-bit theatre above a pub where if you stuff yourself into the leading roles no one is going to care.

I think it's bad form on principle. I will still think that even if its the greatest production of Edward II of all time.

Are you going to see it? I think it was a mistake programming this and Titus Andronicus consecutively (and then 4.48 Psychosis!). There’s only so much gruesome / harrowing theatre I’m prepared to watch. My husband’s refusing to go and see any of them. I’m torn between Simon Russell Beale or (because I’ve never seen it) 4.48 Psychosis. Very excited for Hamlet, though, which does lead me to revise my earlier statements about current inferior casting compared with repertory days.

That's very bad form. If he wants to act he needs to go through the casting process like everyone else.

And he's put an actor out of a job.

He needs to decide what he wants to do, act or manage.

Are you going to see it?

No I'm not as a point of principle. also it's not a play I really rate but I'm not interested in seeing him in the lead role, the plays not a draw for me and neither is the lead actor or anyone in the cast.

I am going to see Titus Andronicus because I would go and see SRB read an endless shopping list of tedium. I'm also going to see Much Ado because I'm interested to see how the football concept will work and I like Michael Longhurst as a director. I saw some great stuff of his at the Donmar.

Like you I'm in two minds about 4.48. I've not seen it. I've seen some Sarah Kane and it's all been very 😱. I do like seeing plays I've never seen before especially things not done very often. I suspect I won't bother tbh. I'm not super keen on TOP as a venue either. If it has great reviews and there is still availability I might go but I'm thinking not.

@GCAcademic the other good thing about rep casting is that as an audience member you felt more invested I think. It was like watching a family. It gave the RSC a true company sense. It was nice to see young actors be in different roles in different plays, then come back in another season moving up from the lower roles to supporting roles to later leading roles. Now it all feels a bit like - wham, here's your cast for Play 1. Wham- here's your cast for Play 2. It lacks the sense of a company and that feels different as an audience member I think.

Just interested whether it's really actors against doing a year of rep, or companies not wanting the risk of having someone on their books for that long / more expensive obligations?

I'd be thinking early/even mid career actors would love that year of stability & guaranteed income in their lives! Freelance life is super stressful!

I come from classical music background and people would love this opportunity in my world.

Re the Dan Evans thing - perhaps a bit much in one season but there is precedent. Do you have to be a name to get the big part? Not always... It might be written into his contract that he gets to do a certain amount of performing (because, it would otherwise actually take away a lot from the day job)? Perhaps reserve judgment until it comes out but yes, it doesn't scream 'open opportunities' on the face of it, does it!

I'd be thinking early/even mid career actors would love that year of stability & guaranteed income in their lives! Freelance life is super stressful!

I think that maybe right for older actors or ones who are struggling to find work but I don't think it makes a difference because for a rep season at the RSC you need to have a company which will need to include

• some leading actors - preferrably at least one or two big names that will be audience draws like the Ian McKellans (pre LoTR fame) or Judi Denches of old (that status as actors but younger)

-some leading actors who whilst not superstar names yet are excellent and being given 'big break' type leading roles -supporting actors who are also rated and good. -younger actors who are just starting out.

For various reasons, all the people in those categories are going to be less willing to commit to doing a rep season. At the RSC it used to be one - two years - the season at Stratford then the transfer to London/the Barbican.

Very new actors will be thinking is it worth me tying up my time for a whole year for a few lines as the Maid or the Boy which will mean I can't go on auditions for what I really what - Netflix gig.
Most of the super-star leading actors will be getting better paid offers with the exception of a tiny handful of great actors (usually sadly for very trivial reasons like physical appearance or the lack of proper character parts that would suit them) who haven't crossed over successfully into TV or film work.
Then the ones who are really struggling and desperate probably wouldn't be in the line to get the job anyway.

Michelle Terry often casts herself at The Globe, but I think from the thread it is not generally ADs doing this that bothers you, but him doing it. I wonder if it is just a perk of the job.