I do like that the interior is so opposite to the angular machine coldness of the exterior, and I don't mind that, in some ways, it seems to be a return to the brash opulence of the Victorian music hall.
I'm not going to lie to you, gunter wouldn't be a big theatre goer [mostly because if you're going to fork out thirty or forty quid to hear two blokes talking to each other, you might as well stay in and click on archiseek], but theatre design has always fascinated me.
Architecturally, I have always liked 60's Brutalism
, even the mild Brutalism
of Denys Lasdun, but the theatre as a segment of a shuttered concrete stadium, with plush seats and carpet, never worked for me. It always seemed to me that the architecture of theatres like Lasdun's National Theatre in London strove too hard to emulate the forms, and possibly the longevity, of classical Greek/Roman models, when there was absolutely nothing wrong with the tiered and galleried box.
Concrete instead of stone, but the half circle layout of the Olivier Theatre in the South Bank complex hints at the classical inspiration for much late-20th-century theatre design, with an emphasis on Ephesus.
If the Grand Canal Theatre is some kind of fusion of Libeskind's angular metallic house style and something like traditional theatre design, this could be a bit special.
On a related topic, did anyone hear that radio interview during the week [can't remember channel] with the director of the Globe Threatre [can't remember name], . . . . very interesting stuff.
Apparently the literati are inclined to sneer at the Globe for being a reconstructed Elizabethan tourist trap, but yer man had answers. What's the difference between being the director of the Globe and being the director of a regular [subsidized] theatre, he was asked. Answer: 'Well the Globe is always full, and everyone always leaves happy'
So apparently you don't actually need carpet . . . or seats