Category Archives: Producer

Sentence and Execution: Concluding the Production

With STAMP Theatre’s The Trial now a week ago today, performing to strong audience quantity and reaction, I will take a retrospective look at the process of creating the show to examine the production’s strengths and flaws in order to assess how our company, and its members, can improve. As Jerzy Grotowski states, ‘you can’t ignore the result because from the objective point of view the deciding factor in art is the result’ (1981, p. 201).

To ensure everything required for a successful show was completed, I created a day-schedule (STAMP performance day schedule);  tailored to have more time than perhaps necessary spent on technical details, as set-up, in my experience, often overruns because of unforeseen contingencies. I also wanted to have one cue-to-cue, to adjust ourselves to the lighting (which I would be operating with our stage manager and lighting designer’s cue sheet), and one final dress rehearsal. I also added several breaks due to the same reason of running only one dress rehearsal – so the technical staff and performers would not be exhausted for the night ahead.

sched1 sched2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have placed the performance day schedule next to the actual timeline of the day above (the latter in document form here [performance day breakdown]) to show the difference in what was expected of the day and what happened. As we completed the technical details relatively quickly, we were able to have a cue-to-cue one hour early. However, I mistakenly set a dress rehearsal directly after this, as there were lighting states to improve after the cue-to-cue. Even with this, because of the extra technical allotment, we were working on time. The dress rehearsal was especially vital for me in operating the LX; although we had a simple technical procedure due to our lack of stagehand set-changing or sound, and I have had experience in working LX boards professionally, due to the quick lighting cues of the piece (which numbered more than 90) I had to adjust myself to where difficult cues appeared.

Throughout the day, when changes to the schedule were made, I acted as a go-between for the actors, the director, and our technical team (consisting itself of stage manager Darren Page, chief technician Martin Rousseau, and our lighting assistant Alex Kent). Problems arise in the schedule when there is miscommunication, and so I made everyone know clearly what was going to happen, and when. This was a very direct experience for me in terms of the importance of the producer – with the director affirming the look of the set, lighting and proficiency of the actors, I had the responsibility of making sure tasks were carried out. Although there are a few minor changes I would have made to the schedule (such as having allotted time after the cue-to-cue, and having the actors come in as early as possible [an amendment the director fortunately made]), I am assured that the technical success of the show and ability to perform tasks in good time was strongly aided by my scheduling foresight and on-day communication.

Although I believe the performance was a success, I believe I could have done several things as producer to increase the company’s effectiveness. Contrasting with my self-analysis for communication on the day, I failed to rotate several details between myself and the venue, which led to a clash in timetabling. I also expressed interest in connecting our marketing department more with the community, specifically in school workshops, which although was cancelled because of concerns with time, could have been done with effective planning. Nonetheless, I am glad to have experienced mistakes as well as successes, as if I had neither of each I would not be able to improve myself as a producer. As Grotowski states: ‘It is after the production is completed and not before that I am wiser’ (1981, p. 98).

 

Word count: 630.

Overall word count: 2,737.

Works cited

Grotowski, Jerzy (1981), ‘American Encounter’, Towards a Poor Theatre, ed. by Eugenio Barba, London: Methuen, pp. 199-210.

Grotowski, Jerzy (1981), ‘Methodical Exploration’, trans. Amanda Pasquier and Judy Barba, Towards a Poor Theatre, ed. by Eugenio Barba, London: Methuen, pp. 95-100.

Administrating the Cogs: The Role of the Producer

David Jubb defines the arts producer as those who ‘seek to connect people, and promote an understanding of the importance of process, idea, artist’ (2007, p. 6). Naturally working with my additional role as dramaturge, my role as company producer grants me the task of idea synthesis with the director, working to compound the company’s production into a ‘product’, and overseeing the development of the performers, internal administration, and the outreach of the company. The central part of the work, as Madeline Hutchins, Sue Kay and Anouk Perinpanayagam write, includes ‘decisions closely related to the “product”… managing and supporting individuals… the financial side… Marketing… contracts, copyright, licensing’ (2007, p. 13). Essentially, the producer is the head of the company outside the rehearsal room.

The theatre company producer differs from the theatre producer in their informality and freedom of venue and output. The former, as explained below by David Gilmore of St. James Theatre in London, relies on the management of a business and staff in a single, compact working environment, selecting the shows that represents the theatre’s output.

The theatre company producer, however, has the ability to create projects without having to fulfil the taste of a certain venue – their business is based on pitching their product to venues. This is especially true of our non-profit company – although we are financed by our venue, Charles Grippo writes of the non-profit producer that ‘Since his shows don’t have to show a profit, he can focus more on “art”’ (2002, p. 15). As Hutchins, Kay and Perinpanayagam expand:

This freedom to make your own job, even within existing organisations, is symptomatic of the willingness to challenge the accepted forms or the “norm”. There is an informality and a lack of definition that leaves some completely bewildered and lost, but that is “home” to others. (2007, p. 17)

This sense of becoming ‘lost’ is encased in negotiating the various administrative procedures required with creating and presenting a performative product. Working with the director and company ethos to ‘select, come up with or agree an “idea” using finely tuned artistic, contextual and commercial judgement’ (2007, p. 38), the initial occupation of the producer is to secure any necessary rights. With The Trial, this meant contacting Berkoff’s agency and negotiating the price of the licence – then organising for the venue to secure it in our name. The negotiation of the rights, along with my initial dramaturgical message to the director, is attached (correspondence), as well as Samuel French’s quotation documents (IMG_0018back of quotation 2013Method of Payment Form-1). I have also attached a copy of our edited script, which I typed out and distributed for the cast. This was originally achieved using Celtx, followed by a second, definite copy in Word (trial) – the latter being the more accessible program.

‘Putting the right team together and then “managing” them effectively and “playfully” to produce the best results’ (2007, p. 38) is another part of the producer’s task. To ensure the quality of the product, I worked with our director in the auditions and casting among our set company to allocate characters within the play. Although the director is allocated the artistic creation of the performance, as overseer of the company’s workings it was important that my judgement was necessary to character choice. I found that responding to unforeseeable problems was of high significance as producer, and in this spirit of fluidly responding to the company’s needs I helped to direct certain scenes whilst our director concentrated on one or two actors. Despite my work being a blueprint for the director to improve, the producer requires an understanding of how a performance is shaped in the rehearsal room, in order to articulate its value outside of it.

 

Word count: 611.

Works cited

Grippo, Charles (2002), The Stage Producer’s Business and Legal Guide, New York: Allworth Press.

Hutchins, Madeline, Sue Kay and Anouk Perinpanayagam (2007), Passion and Performance: Managers and Producers in Theatre and Dance, Brighton: University of Sussex.

Jubb, David (2007), in Madeline Hutchins, Sue Kay and Anouk Perinpanayagam, Passion and Performance: Managers and Producers in Theatre and Dance, Brighton: University of Sussex, p. 6.

St. James Theatre (2012), ‘Video Interview – Theatre Producer David Gilmore.mov’ [online] < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcVbYkm_dC0> [accessed 19 April 2013].