British Theatre Guide Blog

No, nothing to do with the BTG.  I have resigned from my position as a drama tutor with a local authority’s Adult and Community Learning section.  It’s all because of paper.

I was observed this week and comments made on my teaching.  I am running a Drama course for adults with profound learning difficulties and, although it is very demanding, I am enjoying it and feel as though my group are making great progress.  Their carers agree, and both the group and the carers tell me they are enjoying the course.

The observer was enthusiastic about the lesson she saw, the enjoyment of the group, the progress being made and the comments of the carers, but then slammed me for the quality of my paperwork.  My lesson plans and Scheme of Work were not detailed enough and I did not make full use of the ILPs (Individual Learning Plans).

My lesson plans simply outlined what I was going to do in the lesson: I should have included aims and objectives, how much time I will devote to each part of the lesson, how I would assess progress, and so on But I know why I am doing each activity and the amount of time devoted to them depends upon the response of the group.  Why do I need to write this down when I know what I am doing?  What is the point of the lesson plans except to guide me during the lesson?  Nobody wants to see them unless an observer is looking at the lesson.

The Scheme of Work should be detailed, saying what I am going to do in every lesson - all 20 of them! - (together with aims and objectives, of course) but in a different format from the lesson plans.  I point out that my SoW covers everything that is needed (what I am trying to achieve, methodology and so on) - but ah, it isn’t in the correct format.

As for the ILPs, they have to be filled in through discussion with the “learner”.  But only two of these learners can communicate verbally anyway, and only one of them can come close to understanding the questions I am supposed to ask.  And I am completing the tutor’s comments section, only on a separate sheet.  Ah, but it has to be done in the correct format: I can only go onto a separate sheet if there is insufficient space on the form.

So I’m doing a great job in my actual teaching, but I can’t be described as a good teacher because my paperwork isn’t right.

So I have resigned.  I’ll finish this course, naturally, because it will disappoint the group if I don’t, but I won’t work for ACL again.  If creating reams of managerial tick boxes is as important as the actual teaching, I don’t want to know any more.

No, not politicians this time, but big business.

According to a report in The Stage, lawyers for the Sunday Times have ordered an actor either to pay £400 a year or remove from his website a Sunday Times review of an Edinburgh show in which he appeared.

Legally, of course, they are quite correct.  News International, the group which owns the ST, owns the copyright in the review and they are perfectly entitled to charge whatever they want for its use or to prevent anyone reproducing it.  No one can argue against that, and it is quite proper that there should be this kind of legal protection for the use of intellectual property.

But how silly!  The ST reviewer will have received a free ticket for the show and, possibly, been given back-up material.  (S)he then reviewed the intellectual property of the writer (the text of the production) and of the company and its members (the actual production, including the actors’ interpretation), so, without them, there would be no review - which is why the work of the critic is seen by some in the profession as being parasitic. 

(I think that’s wrong, but that’s beside the point in this context.)

Yes, the actor concerned should have cleared it with the ST before putting it online (out of politeness, regardless of any legal requirement), but for a spokeswoman for News International to tell The Stage that the re-publication of content from the corporation’s newspapers without permission is illegal and the issue is managed on a case-by-case basis, is frankly pathetic.  It’s the action of the playground bully, only legally sanctioned - “you didn’t ask our permission, so we’re going to give you a good kicking”.

But it has wider implications. Legal advice given to The Stage says that it would have been safer for a link to be given to to the ST website or for short quotations only to be reproduced.

I was at a theatre recently where a Times review of a forthcoming touring show was reproduced in full in the foyer.  Will the lawyers be chasing them?  They’ve got two targets there: the theatre and the visiting company.

In our production of A Cold Coming in South Shields recently, we plastered reviews from the Shields Gazette and Northern Footlights all over the theatre.  Would they charge us?  Of course not, because it’s also good advertising for them.

A recent national tour of a play which originated locally used a substantial proportion of my review of the original production in all its publicity, including a huge reproduction of it in the theatres’ foyers.  Did it even occur to me to charge for it or demand that my permission be asked?  Of course not, because it was good advertising for the BTG.

Reviewers depend on theatres, companies, writers, directors and actors for without them they wouldn’t have a job.  Theatre, companies, writers, directors and actors depend on reviewers to attract audiences.  It’s a mutual dependency and one can only hope that it was the lawyers, with their typical tunnel vision, who originated this example of stupidity and not the journalists, for if it was the latter, then perhaps companies should consider whether it’s worth having a Sunday Times review at all!

It looks like “selective” quotes from reviews are likely to be a thing of the past from the end of the year when the new EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive comes into force.

You know the sort of thing: the critic writes “this is the furthest I have seen from a perfect play” and the producers splash “a perfect play” all over the posters.

It’s actually not as frequent as it used to be - critics have made their opinions felt and there exists a kind of “gentleman’s agreement” in London - but it still happens.

The Directive would make it unlawful - and, in some cases, even criminal - to mislead the public by using “unfair commercial practices”.  Of course, as with all EU Directives (and, indeed, with all laws coming out of Westminster), before we know the full effects, it will have to be tested in the courts, so the OFT is likely to be taking an unwonted interest in theatre in the New Year!

Hands up those who are surprised that, as we report today, there will be very little money available for the so-called Cultural Olympiad, except for the mandatory ceremonies.

No one?  What a shock!

After the jubilation at London’s securing the 2012 Olympics, we have been treated to the usual govermental incompetence, half-truths and, let’s be blunt, downright lies.  The arts, heritage, sport at grassroots level are all going to suffer serious damage year on year, both before and, I suspect, after the Games, for the greater glory of… who? the politicians who see the Olympics as a way of bolstering their tarnished reputations?  Who else?

And now we hear that one of the so-called mandatory ceremonies is an evening of entertainment to welcome International Olympic Committee officials when they arrive in London - and you can bet that won’t consist of an amateur operatic company singing songs from the shows and a finger-buffet in a town hall committee room!

Sickening!

So some London producers are annoyed that the BBC is unfairly promoting Andrew Lloyd Webber.  You can’t blame them: theatre audiences are finite and if shows like Any Dream Will Do attract audiences to see Joseph or whatever production is being hyped, it means they are, at least in part, an audience lost to other shows.

But my objection to this kind of theatrical “reality” (What a misnomer! There is nothing “real” about an audition strung out over weeks in front of cameras and watched and voted on by millions of people!) is much more fundamental.   And not only is it not “real”, it cheapens the whole audition process.

Actors may moan about auditions, that in some cases they are not given a proper chance to show what they can do, and it has to be said that some auditions are pretty perfunctory affairs, at least for those who don’t get called back, but, generally speaking, directors have a pretty good idea of what they’re looking for and can recognise it when they see it.  Not to be recalled is not - usually: there are bound to be some exceptions -  a comment on the actor’s talent or skill but a recognition that (s)he does not fit the profile the director is looking for.  If the actor does not fit the “look” (or perhaps “aura” might be a better word), then (s)he will not fit the vision the director has of the finished piece.

 How can this happen in a reality TV show?  Do the millions (or whatever) of people who vote have any concept of what goes into selecting the right person for the role?  Of course not.  They go for looks that please them and a voice they like.

In any case, who should the public have a say?  Do they have a say in selecting the local hospita’s consultant brain surgeon?  Of course they don’t: they rely on the selection board to choose the right person, bearing in mind the many variables associated with the position which only they know about.  When non-experts have to make the decisions, more often than not they get it wrong because they make their choice based on the wrong criteria.

I said the reality TV route cheapens the audition process, but actually it cheapens the shows involved and theatre in general.  And no one can tell me that Andrew LLoyd Webber is not aware of this: he is far too shrewd an operator.  But the publicity is worth millions and if, in the end, the wrong Joseph (or Sandy, or Danny) is chosen, he can be quietly persuaded to leave the show at an early stage.