Joe Egg in today's West

You raise some very interesting and discussion worthy points. Is it a case of biased perception between Pro and Am, or is there a valid case for the discrimination? Allow me a moment to play Devil's Advocate ;-)

"Would it be right for amateur theatre to be evaluated by the same standards as professional and semi-professional theatre?"

I don't see why not. Regardless of what some may think, the standard of Community Theatre, at least around Perth is on Par if not occasionally superior to that of professional work. It is also one of your grooming grounds for new talent, so why not expose them to the public. Additionally, it would be up to the individual theatres as to whether a should is publicised or not, and if they were to publish a show that would reflect poorly on them, then that is their issue.

And it is not just an issue of an audience enjoying shows more than a pro show. The amount of work and creative problem solving that has gone in to the creation of more than a handful of productions is testiment to the talent that exists in Community Theatre. Does that not deserve some exposure?

"...would it be fair for a reviewer to give more lenient reviews to amateur productions...that the amateur productions may not have the same budget or levels of experience behind them?"

Again, I think the point is mute as quite a bit of 'professional' work is done a shoe-string budget. In fact, there have been Am shows that have worked with a larger Budget than some Pro shows. I have heard reviews of Pro shows (and if you like in Pro Reviews) that have poorly compared the performance and set designs to that of Am shows. Additionally, if Fairness is an issue, then why not clearly state in a review that a show is professional or community? What is more important, the exposure of a vibrant and buzzing Theatrical Culture, be it pro or am, or that the actors get paid?

"..people should be encouraged to see professional and semi professional work, because in general it is of a higher standard."

And yet by exposing only these types of production, does it not project upon the general public that this is the only type of theatre? Would it not perpetuate the view that WA (in particular) is culturally dull?

Personally, I think the line between Pro and Am is very grey. There is a massive amount of cross-over, especially if you consider the amount of semi-pro work around, or even profit-share projects.

"Plus- Actors SHOULD be paid. By promoting work which pays actors, The West Australian is promoting actors getting paid."

What about promoting actors that SHOULD be paid? ;-) - Still, you make a very valid argument, maybe a line should be drawn, but who decides?

Beyond all that, and on a more general note, the West has the right to choose what they will and will not promote in their publications. We can attempt to convince them otherwise and maybe even one day get them to change their minds. That remains to be seen.

However, there are plenty of alternative means of promoting shows through secondary publications and such. The main issue I think comes down to the fact that people actually read the WEST as opposed to the Community Rags and promotional sites. The West stands for exposure and I think that is the real drive; we want in on that exposure.

In other words, (and I am sure Cerunos and others will agree) the West and equivalent state based newspapers are not the Holy Grail of publicity. Attempting to change an organisational mindset which has no doubt been set up to filter the massive amount of information that could potentially flood a newspaper, is going be one hard battle.

In the end, we want the community at large to know we are there and that we are doing things. They may not be world-class but it is happening.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

SN Profile