Are awards & judging influenced by Dollars?

Everyone would like to think that Brigid, It's just not the case though.

I hate myself when I go to a church performance, or a small community theatre performance and just can't shut off the critical part of my brain which just keeps nagging at me at how bad the show is. Yes, everyone is in it to have fun etc. And they sure do, you can tell that, but they're not going to win any awards.

Having said that though, who's really in it for the awards?

• reply
• -5 votes

Whilst the perception and in honesty the reality is that money breeds reward... it must be given to awards organisations that split their award categories to address this issue, be it intentionally or otherwise. (ie Lyrebirds by cost of production).

Should all awards do this, I think not, but for those that do to recognise, kudos!

And to anonymous, I know exactly what you mean, I on Wed went to a production in my new home town of Sydney by a company which generally gets a good wrap... Oh MY!!!! is all I can say!

• reply
• -3 votes

This subject matter gets thrown around quite regulary. I think it would be a wise and bold move for the awards organisations to go down the cost of production path. Lyrebirds to it well and I think it also gives those awards more kudos too. The guild are reluctant to do that I'm sure because of the fall out it may produce with various companies. I think they should do it as it would give smaller low budget companies/shows a chance to be fairly judged and highlighted. What the guild may also be worried about is that the likes of CLOC will get their noses out of joint because there are a limited few competitors. People who say that we are only interested in doing the show for the audience and not for awards should not then register their show for judging -it's that simple!

• reply
• 2 votes

I've seen many people over the years who have performed in some of the less well funded shows get nominations (and even win), but performances are fairly "stand alone" and don't really require cash to make them great. Shaun Kingma won last year for best supporting and Assassins had a small budget. Good people are good, no matter how much money they have behind them.

I think the overall "Production of the year" type awards or even "Best Director" almost always go to the companies who have the cash to bring creative ideas to life. There are lots of highly creative directors out there who I'm sure have some brilliant ideas, but many of them never see the light of day because of the budgetary constraints of small scale theatre. This also has some benefits of working with small scale companies, the main one is that it forces you to think of new ideas to get around those cash constraints, but inevitably, you end up choosing an idea (or settling for an idea) that was rarely as good as the first one you had! Sometimes you just need a little more "wow' factor than performances alone can provide. If you think back to the opening sequence of the Lion King or the chandelier falling in Phantom, or the helicopter in Miss Saigon... these are all moments that wouldn't have happened without some serious resources behind them and they definitely added that "wow" factor which set them apart.

I think the idea of separating shows based on budget is not really viable. The awards are long enough as it is without adding another layer of awards. Budget under $50K, Budget under $100K etc... The awards are there to recognise the best of the best and offering concessions based on budget just makes it too easy to win. If you are only in a category with 2 other companies, I think the competition is too lean. The cashed up companies set the bar very high and that’s a good thing because it encourages all companies great and small to produce the best work possible. A lot of the smaller companies who are doing it “just for fun” aren’t in it for the awards anyway, right? They are in it, “just for fun”, so by definition, they really don't care for awards anyway.

• reply
• -3 votes

"There are lots of highly creative directors out there who I'm sure have some brilliant ideas, but many of them never see the light of day because of the budgetary constraints of small scale theatre."

Doesn't being a "highly creative" director mean that you're able to work within the budget constraints of small scale theatre? Sure it would be nice to have money to play with, but if you're a good director you're a good director regardless of budget. It's the poor directors that fail to find opportunities for greatness in community theatre.

• reply
• 0 votes

It really depends on the show itself. Obviously a show such as Miss Saigon or Singin' In The Rain needs big bucks and resources to live up to its "moments" which are vital to the piece. Something that is small to begin with such as The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee or Assassins doesn't have the iconic and story important technical, money hungry elements, hence meaning it's looked at in a different light.

As long as an appropriate show is chosen for the scale a company is able to produce it at then it should be able to be judged on the complete experience of that show. It would be ridculous to attempt to stage "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" in an old church hall on a show string budget, just like it is silly to stage a small cast & band chamber musical on a huge stage in a large theatre.

Don't forget that in 2003 it wasn't the big budget, star powered Wicked that won the Tony, rather it was the Off-Broadway born, smaller scale Avenue Q...

• reply
• -2 votes

I'm loving the feedback. Looks like there are heaps of different views and I'm sure there are more - get involved and let's hear what you have to say about this.

• reply
• 0 votes

All I can say is that if you are creative and resourceful it is amazing what you can do on a small budget! I have just experienced this firsthand. Sometimes less is more.....effective! You can spend thousands on fancy sets and costumes which granted helps visually but if you don't have a tight show with good direction and a talented cast onstage then you really have achieved nothing! I have witnessed shows with huge budgets that don't look any better costumed and the sets are not any better than some low budget shows and quite often the direction is bad by so called high profile directors. ???
I think Awards are based more on who's who and reputation than on $$$$$s!

• reply
• -3 votes

True, the Lyrebirds have separate financial categories, but in my experience many school/amateur musical productions have budgets closer to $15,000-$20,000, with 'straight' theatre much less than that. The Lyrebird categories are either over or under $30,000 – although I suspect many of the judged productions have budgets well above or below this figure...and we all know an extra $5000-$10,000 can go along way.

I agree that theatre is for love and not awards, but I think it is certainly an issue in terms of reviewing and comparing productions. Even when simply viewing a show, I wonder how often people say “It’s great, considering the budget”, or “that is unacceptable in such a well equipped venue”... theatre going is so subjective that in the end, we must create our own criteria.

Angie

• reply
• -2 votes

I find the notion that an actor can win an award without a big budget behind them but a director can't, very interesting!
Makes me think that perhaps the judges and the amateur theatre community do not understand all that is required of a director. Certainly it is evident based on some people’s directorial efforts that they have no idea what is required of them
Mind you 'walk here, stand there then throw lots of money at it and voila!' does seem to be all too often what is expected of a director and all they are capable of bringing to the table.
Same goes for Best Production. What a shame that a show with a small budget which managed to excel at all aspects despite budgetary constraints cannot win (or often even be nominated) up against a big budget show that lacked artistic merit or despite it’s big budget, failed to connect with the audience.

I’m not suggesting that every big budget show lacks artistic merit or fails to connect with the audience; I am however suggesting that shows with small budgets are able to tick all the boxes under the right guidance, something this community is seriously lacking.

• reply
• 3 votes

"... in my experience many school/amateur musical productions have budgets closer to $15,000-$20,000..." WOW! What school have you worked with? Our school's production budget is anything between $2,500 to $5,000. We produce some amazing shows and have received many nominations, commendations and judges awards from the guilds, including Best Director last year. All directors have great ideas, but only the great directors can stage a stunning show with a 'next to nothing' or 'money's no object' budget. It's the performance that counts not the chairs you sit on, not the selection of drinks at the bar. Costumes, sets, lights etc do add to the wow factor or a show but if the direction, staging and acting stinks then the show is going to stink. And let's not add a new category to the guilds - if a show is good a show is good.

• reply
• -2 votes