The Stage's "Newsblog" at http://www.thestage.co.uk recently reported about a man who refused to give an amateur company permission to put on Carousel at his theatre and wrote a long letter to them explaining his views on amateur drama in general, stating that he didn't want shows at his theatre which are performed by "nearly every other" school or amateur group, listing as examples Hello Dolly, South Pacific, Annie, Oklahoma and The Boyfriend. Do you agree there are "overdone" plays/musicals in amateur theatre, and if so, which ones?

this article has already been discussed at some length here.

In general, yes, there are loads of shows that are overdone. (often however for very good reasons) I seem to be the dissenting voice that he may have had a valid reason to outlaw it . . .

xx

Oh, dear. And I ran a search, too Silly me. But thanks!

No, I don't think you were he only one. I do know what you mean, but it did seem very high handed. Lots of Shakespeare is done too often, but presumably he would consider that intelectually acceptable and therefore ok.

As for overdone, imho "Grease" comes top of the list

And yet you produced King and I recently. I assume it was not some modern version? Why did you do a show which has been done to death? I lit it a few years ago and it got good box ofice so the punters were happy it was put on. In fact one of the Watford groups did it the next season

We did it for the same reason everyone else does it - it puts bums on seats. That said, (and I'm sure alan will back me up on this) it was veeeeery differnet to the usual version - not a painted flat in sight.

i didnt say it was necessarily wrong (and for what its worth in our area, K+I hasnt been performed nearly as often as most of the others) just that there may be very good reasons for a venue refusing to stage them. (Funders/remit, obligations etc)

xx

Of course painted flats kind of set the scene. Otherwiew a show can become basically a concert Though I know this is a generalistaion, but if you think about it, the people who will get the most out of the story will be those who have seen either the stage show or maybe the film and can see what the setting is trying to achieve

How often have I heard it said, never mind we can sort that scene out with the lighting

But I do see your point as well.

its a personal preference thing for me - i have yet to see a painted flat i like . . . .ever

They look okay from the audience perspective though, and cutain legs look just that.

i'm talking about from my perspective in the audience - i just dont like them - they (imho) invariably end up looking naff.

Strikes me the cast cant be too good if you spend too long looking at the set

possibly also true (although it could be that the set is detracting from the cast . . . . )

Yes!

But whose fault is it?
The societies or the audiences?

Personally I'd rather do new - modern - musicals/plays (and there are plenty of good ones) but then where do you find the audience?

Put on annie and the theatre is full.

Most of the paying public will only go to see stuff they have already seen


Ho hum!

H

Sounds like a case of horses for course - Pamela is noticing the acting cos that's what she's primarily interested in while Nick is more interested in the rest of the set-up? our group has produced a professional stage manager from our ranks - she's never been interested in being on stage - she went to see something and when asked about it could give a detailed account of the stage management and props, and apparently the performances were all right too!

In our group there is a general 'snob' factor about some plays being exclusively "amdram" domain and therefore not worth putting on. But we are doing Abigail's Party this year (we only do plays, not musicals) so occasionally the director can 'sell' the show to the group with the promise of rejuvenating it, making it more relevant etc etc.

But I can understand the original group's frustration at the theatre manager dictating their programme...and if it is such a good bums-on-seats show then surely he only has to look tot he bottom line anyway? Relationship issues there I think!




We sometimes feel that our audiences are quite conservative - but actually is there an argument to say that they are largely friends and family and that therefore they'll sit through anything? Sure you'll have some opinions, Histrio!

Is that just because they are badly done? Some of the sets we've ended up with are so badly done, I think the hirers should be referred to trading standards. When we did "Hello Dolly" we had to discard half of it straight away, the stairs had to be repainted and repaired and most of it was really tatty. Now I'm sure they have to have a quick turnaround but I do feel the hirers should make sure they're in good condition.

When we're paying a lot for a scenery, and peunters are paying good money, it a scandal if its naff.

When I directed Harvey, my set was a thing of pure beauty - we constructed and erected a box set with two doors and a pair of double swing doors - and that set was so solid they could slam the doors to their heart's content, it didn't budge! I had some friend come in who hadn't seen a play of ours before and were blown away by the set.....and no, that doesn't mean my cast weren't superb! (though I am biased!) I like a box set if there is a call for one and it is a really good one - some plays need it. Though I also like curtains and bare stages and all the other clever things one can do with staging - I am in awe of them a lot of the time.

Well, friends and family for us fortunately are a small fraction of the audience (probably , 10%). Most are OLD though - and audience numbers do drop substantially for anything other than the old favourites. Heck, there's nowt wrong with being old: it's just an observation. But that is the bulk of the audience.
H

KLP build fantastic sets. Anything from the minimalist Bouncers set, but with a huge lighting rig to rippling fields with real corn or a box set for Gaslight. Their sets always look real, they try to achieve the best set to match the best acting they can put on. Most good societies try to achieve this, sadly some fail!

I think a lot depends on your group. At school we can do less well known stuff because our audience is mostly family and friends. We were one of the first to do Honk, and not many people do the Wiz, but we sold both of them out.

It's harder with my town group because we hire a professional theatre and have to sell to people who want to see that show. Best ever sellers Les Mis and West Side Story. We could have doubled our audience for them if we had had the capacity.

I think that's probably the right distinction.

With a cast of, say, 50 if each member sells 10 to family/friends on average then that barely fills one night in the professional theatre we hire. We have to sell another 5 nights to "patrons" and the general public.

How many direct sales (to freinds/family/colleagues) do others average?

His

I think that's right too. We usually perform in a church hall, which, despite our best efforts and a lot of hard work to transform the stage (with good success) and be professional about it, it still carries the stigma of church hall - and there we are heavily reliant on friends/family/colleagues and a good number of 'regulars' unconnected to anyone but appreciative fo what we do. Recently we've been to a "proper" drama studio attached to tha theatre and the combined effect of our usual followers plus those who regularly attend the studio performances meant we were turning people away - something the theatre was blown away by (it's unusual for them apparently).

We like to push the envelope and do more daring things (we did The Dice House last year which certainly can't be described as 'safe' or appealing to our older supporters etc) but there is always the danger that though friends/family come to see us, one bad experience and we'll find they have ready excuses not to attend the next one.

We tend to mix it up as best we can.... although we do wheel out the old favourites/crowd pleasers now and again.

This year has consisted of a fair mix with NAtural Causes and Trap for a Lonely Man ... and then we wheeled out Outside Edge to get big audiences...

Last year we started off with perennial farce favourite Rumours, the also often done Straight & Narrow but I completed the year with the seldom done odd and weird Wildest Dreams by Ayckbourn. Sold about 3 tickets but it was a big critical success so there you go.. (ok it sold 200 over 3 nights in hall with 150ish capacity and our usual audience over 3 nights is 300-400 oso it was way below that)

I find the overdone play/crowd pleaser a bit dull so I don't tend to direct them.

Next year will be different as I will be directing the crowd-pleaser... Noises Off! ... and we haven't decided the other two yet but one will be Ayckbourn in the round.

There's also a generally good reason that some shows have become "overdone"- namely, that they're the better ones to perform and draw in crowds. It's all very well saying that we tend to get friends/family in amdram, but I continue in the naive hope that there's something more to the audience than "look at my Simon up onstage". I would like to think they can enjoy a show in its own right. If they are only coming to see me as a favour, then I almost wish they wouldn't come.

It's all very well saying we'd like to do lesser known shows, but surely a lot of these are not well known because they sunk without a trace due to being rubbish (I appreciate this isn't the case in all instances). Or perhaps because they are too demanding and challenging musically. If I was trying to get someone interested in orchestral music, who wasn't a connosieur, I don't think I'd choose to take them to hear Stockhausen.

I think it is always going to be a juggling act between what you think will please the most people and what you as a director are interested in staging...
Sometimes you get it right and your audience really takes to something different and sometimes you get it wrong and they stay away. I believe that's part of the joy of amateur theatre.

As has also been said, alot of these "overdone" plays have become that way because they are solid "staples". They become popular because they are decent plays/shows and they gain a reputation for being decent because they are popular

I don't think there is any "shame" in a group conciously aiming to please their audience. So long as the director likes the play and is enthusiastic about taking it on - no disgrace in being populist.
The exception is if a group insists on their Directors ONLY doing provenly popular plays - variety is important for audience AND cast/crew.

Passion is the key - I can be passionate about any GOOD play - whether it's already popular or not.
If it's already well known then that's a bonus and my drive is to do it well and make it "fresh" again for our audience. If it's not well-known, my drive is to do it well and introduce our audience to something new and exciting.
It's a challenge either way and therein lies the joy!

Funkiboi

Some very good points in the last two posts, and I also think that many shows become popular because we're all loking for similar things much of the time - enough for the chorus to do, not too many men are the most obvious for many companies. Add to that things like age profiles, degree of musical dificulty, complex sets or special effects, and you're bound to narrow it down. We'd all like a bigger range to choose from, bt so many discussions on here come down to the same thing - you have to choose what you can put on effectively.

Sure, some of the big shows are good - does not stop them being overdone


There's a very conservative streak in people though.

Here's a converstion I've heard more than once (X varies)
Q "Do you want some X"
A "I don't like X"
Q "Have you ever tried it?"
A "No"

OK, I have a couple of new musicals in mind which i believe have a fantastic story and music. Sadly they are less that 5 years old with almost no UK exposure. Now they might be the next big thing. They might be as good as. But I guess we will stage Oklahoma, My Fair Lady, The Mikado, Calamity Jane, etc (which ALL local societies within 30 miles have also done within the last 5 years) because people will come and see them again.

New does not mean better: but it can be as good. Perhaps for me it an adventurous streak: the same reason I almost never holiday in the same resort twice. New is different and therefore an adventure.






Sorry to answer this in a separate reply: it's another thing.

Unlike professional theatre where you buy in the mix of people (principals and chorus) to stage the show in AmDram we by and large want to find something for the members to do.

One weakness (IMO) in some of the "big" shows is that they were written to showcase the "talents" of just one or two Hollywood actors. So apart from the two leads other parts are pretty much stock characters with almost no lib. So you end up with two club members having loads to do and most having little more than cameo appearances.

For AmDram - well, for a start there should be more meaningful parts for women.
Also, more real (meaningful) character parts and certainly "the chorus" almost replaced by "the minor characters".

Well, that's a personal thing

Hmmmm, tis difficult, there is a large pool of play out there and a more limited one of musicals, but if you're a society who only performs a few times a year - or less - and is putting a finanical stake into the production (for the sake of the society) then you want to do something that will get bums on seats...tres difficile...

I guess we are lucky at SLT, doing 22 shows a year - we can do everything from hoary old chestnuts to brand spanking new stuff, although not all are guarenteed full houses, but we're not relying on them to.....hmmmmm

Apart from our annual panto we don't do musicals so that side of this discussion is less relevant to us but in everything we do we try to strike a balance between shows that we know will be popular (the traditional "nice little farce" springs to mind) and shows that will stretch both the club and the audience. Judging by audience feedback in recent years we appear to be getting this balance right.

I know of one family who have gone to the same hotel in Torremolinos, for the same two weeks for more years than I've known them... and that's a long time. I've often wondered how they ever got to go there in the first place! I think that's an extreme example of people operating within their 'comfort zone'. You see it all the time in everyday life so why should Amdram be different? Much as I hate our Celeb worshipping culture, at least some of them stretch the envelope. The trouble is, all the moronic millions then copy them 'exactly'!

It always has been one of the supreme truths of the theatre that if people have 'heard of it' they will flock in. If its an unknown, they stay away. Many regional pantomimes have tried to exploit the 'celeb' bit by getting in one to star, but we all know whet we think of the average standard if those. There may though be an opportunity to find patronage from someone respected and use that in selling a lesser known show, but having them there in person, may be a bigger pull. Just a thought.

Robin

I do agree with almost everything in Histrio's post, speaking mostly for musicals because that's largely what I'm involved with.

On interesting compromise is when the show is largely re-written. I'm thinking of TM Millie because we're doing that at the moment. Almost all the music is different from the original (much better in my opinion), but you will still get audience who have heard of it.

However adventurous you'd like to be, most of us do have to break even. That makes experimentation more difficult.

And from a performer's standpoint - maybe, just maybe, I'd rather play to a packed house on a boring old G&S musical than to a half-empty house on something exciting.

Yes, I think I do understand why for larger productions the choice of play ends to be conservative (we do need to at least cover costs). In smaller groups (say < 100 seats) then you are catering for a different niche market and might get away with it.

Otherwise, get a celebrity and people will flock in.

Stupid People!

H


PS: If you want a new Musical that will pack them in try "Diana, The Musical". Now personally I think it's cr@p but I bet it would fill the theatre - with people who would moan about it afterwards

Too true! Then there's the version of this conversation I had with one of my kids some time ago:

DAUGHTER: What's for dinner?
ME: (cooking) This is.
DAUGHTER: I don't like thisses!!

But to get back to the point, we have terrible trouble getting people to get out of their houses and DO stuff in this small town! Panto will usually do it, but even then, Cinderella will be a sell out, where some of our less well known pantos aren't. It's as if they are actually SCARED that they might not like something they don't know - whereas if they stay in with the telly they can always find something mediocre, which is less scary for them. I realise that paying for something they don't enjoy is an issue, but we still charge under ?10 per ticket, so it isn't a huge outlay for most people. and they are also assuming that if they've heard of it/seen it before, they are bound to enjoy it, but it could be a really terrible production!
We don't do musicals or traditional plays, but it's getting increasingly difficult to get either a cast or an audience for anything other than pantos - which I pretend to be snooty about but secretly quite enjoy - but don't really find them enough of a challenge.

We are probably doing it wrong by charging only $10 [AUD] maybe we should be charging $24:70 in line with your ?10 tickety price!
I'll have to investigate!

Sad but true. Most things are the same numerical price in UK ?'s as in US$ AU$ and the ?uro. That's why its known worldwide as rip off Britain.

Down in OZ the royalties tend to be higher (correct me if I'm wrong) as a percentage of box office takings - is that to offset the cheaper seats?


To stage a musical cost us ?20,000 - ?30,000
(8K for theatre hire alone)

?10 is our (lowest) ticket price too, a bit of a compromise. Much more and you put people off, less and we would make a loss. Local city centre amateur theatre groups charge nearer ?15 per ticket but have a larger potential audience (and far superior marketing - inclusion in the theatre's mailing list etc)

Local village theatre groups tend to charge ?6-?7 for a seat for straight plays.



When I go to a show the biggest cost by far is the meal beforehand (which the missus insists on being treated to) and the cost of parking. An extra quid or too on the ticket is neither here nor somewhere else.

H

I had a discussion with a colleague some time ago about why he refused to ever come to see a live show that I was in (despite the fact that other colleagues had thoroughly recommended it). And yet, he was an avid and regular cinema goer.

His response was:
"When I go to the cinema, I know exactly what I'm going to get - I've seen the trailers, so I know I'm going to get my money's worth, and I can't be disappointed..."

I was naturally sad to hear this because the reason I go to the theatre is exactly that - because I don't know what I'm going to get, and the prospect of experiencing something magical far outweighs any potential for disappointment.

The royalties for both of the plays that I've directed for our group have been $125AU per performance.
Our full adult ticket sells at $15AU. We seat 164 punters!

Both of these have been plays published in the UK.

If I wish to stage one of my favourite Australian plays, I am looking at $175AU per performance and they wonder WHY new australian theatre struggles to survive!!?

I've also heard on the grapevine that Dominie (samuel french's "agent" in Oz I believe) are to increase their prices in September this year.... so who knows what even the overseas plays will then cost us?!

Funkiboi

The only time we are charge a percentage of box office is for musicals, for performances up to 300 seat capacity the fee is around $200 + between 12% [Carousel] to 30% ['Rent'] of the box office gross takings, depending on the popularity of the musical.
Plays can be between $60 & $200 again depending on popularity.
$10 seem to be stumbling block until the Goods & Services Tax of 10% came in. Although a lot of groups absorbed the GST or just didn?t bother paying it at first, until the tax office started getting in to them & charging the tax as a guestimation of the ticket sales!
Of course if they register for an Australian Business Number & claim back all the GST paid on tickets, services & product purchased by the theatre group. Which is a lot of paper work, but can be worth the effort.
Some theatres have been trying to push it to $20 but lack of punters dropped it back to an average of $12 in their own or hired venues. The type of theatre venue does dictate the price , in performing arts centre it will average around $30 for amdram performances. Unfortunately the royalties also go up with the house capacity & ticket price. To do a musical in a 1000 seat PAC the royalties could cost around $1500 + the percentage/performance, venue hire & what not! So this could be around 3 - $7 per seat.
The number 10 seems to be the key rather than the value of the currency, which seems to be the barrier. [$10 US or $10 AUD & ?10 UK]

It's more an observation on "The Human Condition" in general than on theatre-goers in particular.

Taken to it's extreme you could, once you have watched a DVD you like, never ever watch another just in case it wasn't as good. As an actor, once you've played a role you liked/did well, you could flit from society to society playing the same part (never changing the way you present the character). Afterwards you could always drink the same beer (in case you didn't like the new one) and always choose the same pizza. You could become like the goggle-box watchers who have never watched C4 or C5 because "they only watch BBC/ITV (delete as appropriate).

The list is endless. And you could live the rest of your like happy in the knowlege that you would never again be disaapointed.

But yes, I have been to some very "odd" and often very disappointing films and plays - but amongst them have been some really fantastic gems I'd have missed if I'd stuck to the "top 10 list".

But (another but) the reality remains that if you want to fill a theatre you should stage Annie, again.

H

I think I've met him!

So have I!!!

Personally, there are not enough years left in my life to do all the shows I want to be in (let alone to do all the parts) so I sure as heck won't be setting out to repeat any just now.

Now if I was a pro and being paid for it - it would make sense (getting paid to learn parts you already know).

I also think for AmDram that old f@rts hogging the parts they have done before (coupled to the conservative casting) denies younger members a chance to get a break - and in no small measure explains the ageing demographics of most amateur operatic societies