Adrian Noble plans to knock down the Royal Shakespeare Company's Stratford home and start all over again. To do it, he's counting on raising £50 million by selling Shakespeare as a global brand, reports Gillian Sandford
ARTS: Adrian Noble, the artistic director and chief executive of the Royal Shakespeare Company, is stirring up a tempest. He has a £100 million grand plan for the company's three theatres in Stratford-upon-Avon, the English town where William Shakespeare was born and died, and wants to change the nature and approach of the organisation.
He calls it "making our theatres more accessible, more lively and more welcoming". Critics say he is guilty of commercialising the Bard.
The Arts Council of England has approved a feasibility study of the redevelopment plan and agreed to put up £50 million if the company raises another £50 million. The scheme involves ripping down the Royal Shakespeare Theatre - the company's principal venue in the town, built in 1932 as the Memorial Theatre and seating 1,412 - and creating a new auditorium, seating 1,050, as part of a "theatre village".
But planning permission for the substantial project has yet to be granted, and the Twentieth Century Society, a conservation group, opposes the destruction of the historic building, which lies on the banks of the River Avon.
Within the close ranks of the company, Noble's plans for Stratford have fuelled immense controversy. The playwright John Mortimer has resigned from the RSC board over the issue. And, in a falling-out worthy of the politics of Hamlet, Noble's own mentor, the veteran director Terry Hands, has described the plans as "artistically and financially" unworkable.
The starting point for the redevelopment is the widespread acknowledgement that the Royal Shakespeare Theatre is difficult to work in. Shea Connolly, the executive director of the Northcott Theatre, in Exeter, says the RSC has a tough job in such a building. "It's a notoriously uncomfortable place for audiences generally, and it is a very difficult shape."
He adds that audiences are used to a more intimate relationship with actors. "As a theatre space, it could frustrate a lot of people." He says the only answer to the building's problems may be to knock it down. But consensus on the theatre's problems is pretty much where agreement ends. Some theatre-lovers - including the critic Michael Billington, of the Guardian - believe demolition is too drastic an option and say restructuring would be sufficient.
Noble's plans go much further than the rebuilding of a single theatre. His "theatre village" would include a new 650-seat theatre to take audiences while the main theatre is out of action. He plans to upgrade backstage facilities at The Swan, the Stratford complex's second theatre, and wants to turn the third space, The Other Place, into a theatre academy. The main auditorium will be in a building that will also house restaurants and the RSC shop and have space for other activities.
"I love the idea that people could arrive in the morning, take part in an education programme, have lunch in a fantastic restaurant, visit a costume exhibition, join a fight or voice workshop and then, in the evening, see a show," says Noble. "Over a quarter of our audience are under 25, and we have a real responsibility to give them an experience of theatre that encourages them to come back."
But Noel Witts, a professor of drama at Hull University, is sceptical that such traditional classes and ideas will draw young people to theatre. Others suggest that the traditional doublet-and-hose, or "velvet", Shakespeare productions simply don't electrify young people - who are everyone's future audiences.
Concerns about the financial viability of the project have become more urgent since September 11th. Philippa Harland of the RSC admits that, after the attacks on New York and Washington DC, raising £50 million will not be easy, but she says the company is confident it can generate the funds. Noble points to his financial record at the theatre and says that McKinsey & Company, the management consultancy, advised the company to help ensure its figures were sound.
Noble has cleared a £3.5 million deficit from the RSC's books during his tenure. But he will be gambling a large part of the company's £12 million annual subsidy on the new venture , and if it fails, the trustees will be financially liable - a reason Mortimer has given for resigning.
Noble advocates mixing public and private cash to underwrite productions, and his restructuring of the company will enable him to do more of this, because of the flexibility it offers.
In the restructuring, the RSC will abandon its London home at the Barbican. Instead, smaller companies will do shorter runs in commercial London theatres and tour extensively. The shorter contracts and less cross-casting over several plays - characteristics of the old company - will, Noble hopes, attract big-name actors who otherwise would have rejected traditional two-year lock-in contracts.
Harland says this does not mean the company wants Hollywood names and other stars. She says it will simply enable established actors to take part. But some are sceptical. "The RSC has always been famous . . . not for pulling in stars but producing stars. Pulling in stars is only part of the equation; it can't be the be-all and end-all," says Paul Kerryson, the artistic director of Leicester Haymarket Theatre.
Having already forged a link with the University of Michigan, where the company has a residency, Noble plans more collaboration in the US and greater use of American actors in RSC productions there. He admits this is likely to mean more work underwritten by American corporate cash.
Harland talks of the arrangement with Michigan as a beneficial partnership. She says the income from the residency helped to fund the RSC's millennium project in Britain, which involved the production of all eight of Shakespeare's history plays in chronological order, so that it was possible, ultimately, to see them all in one week. The two weeks when the cycle was under way brought full houses every night, she says.
But, for many, commerce will never be a comfortable bedfellow for theatre. Noble is controversial because he advocates such a match, to the fury of purists. He speaks like a theatre salesman, talking not of plays but of product and of the "RSC brand".
He recently added the renowned literary agent Andrew Wylie to his team, further sharpening the company's commercial edge: Wylie is known as the Jackal for his ruthless negotiating and profit-making skills. "We are a global brand and we create product that is of interest to a lot of people, and we are seeking a way by which can find outlets for that work. It may be workshops, study aids or DVDs, but Andrew will negotiate the best commercial deals," Noble says.
But the overt dependence on corporate dollars creates unease among many theatre-lovers and professionals. They argue that corporate sponsorship places a premium on success at the box office, and that radical interpretations and innovative theatre need to be able to take risks - and, therefore, to fail. "If the finances don't add up unless you have US corporate sponsors, then I think it is a very rocky road," says Kerryson.
Despite the controversy, Noble remains determined to go ahead with the changes. The debate will continue this year, as the company restructuring gets under way. But the building work - a crucial part of Noble's expansionist ideas - is waiting until Easter, for the town's planners. Much of the sound and fury about Noble's project will then focus on them, as they meet to decide whether to approve this new home for their town's most famous product.
