What do you go to see?

Hi all,
I would like to open a topic up for discussion.

*What do you go to see at the theatre, what do you avoid and why?
*Do you only like certain types of theatre?
*Do you only go to see what your own club puts on?
*Do you limit yourself to a certain amount of shows each year?
*Do you only go to see shows that you have heard of?
*Do you only go to see a show if you know someone in it?
*Do you only see shows at certain venues?

Tell me everything you think and please be honest. (I am/have been guilty of some of the above so I am not out to judge).

You see, I am currently involved with a fantastic musical that has never before been performed in Perth, many of the handful of people who have seen it so far have raved and yet our bookings are absolutely dismal. I thought that this might happen to some degree because of PIAF but it's worse than I thought. I have heard that other amateur clubs shows are selling out before they open so I am keen to find out why our show is not doing well at the box office. Does the majority REALLY prefer another production of "The Sound of Music" to something new?

Please let me know what you think.

Cheers,
Gill

I go to see whatever appeals to me (which is pretty much everything) when I have the money and have transport to and from the venue.
Although most tix costs are low for local productions, I tend to not get to as many shows as I'd like to because I'm relying on parental/public transport and it's often too difficult to arrange.

(yes, i know I'm almost 18, yes, i know it's slack for me to not be driving yet, yes, i know it's no excuse)

Even if I think I can arrange transport somewhere, I know from experience that things often dont go as planned, and so if I do see a show, I prefer to buy tickets at the door.
Hopefully things will pick up,
-Bec

As stated I will see things that interest me, that I know someone is in or something different. The problem that I have, is being involved in quite a few shows over a year I will miss a lot because I am involved in a show that is on at the same time as other shows.

I have a tendisy to stay away from musicals, but that is just me.

Another thing that will make think twice about seeing a show is if the tickets are through a ticketing outlet (BOCS). I will then look really hard at a show and see if it is really worth the hassel and extra cost.

But I will travel to see a show, as long as I don't have to drive for 1hour and sit through a 4 hour show then drive another hour home.

Also I need to have publicity material easily on hand so I can see it and be fully aware where and when the show is on. Sometimes
I need to be falling over it.

Hope this helps.

Mike

P.S. please people more nudity, male/female i don't care as long as someone gets there gear off. AND IT IS IN CONTEXT OF THE SHOW.

Message to Grant _
sounds like a good topic for a Poll?

Hi Norma

Norma Davis wrote:
-------------------------------
> Message to Grant _
> sounds like a good topic for a Poll?

Message to Norma (and everyone else):



What's stopping you?

:-)

Seems like some people are still struggling with the paradigm shift in publishing this site represents!

Cheers
Grant

>
>
>Mike wrote:
>-------------------------------
>
>P.S. please people more nudity, male/female i don't care as >long as someone gets there gear off. AND IT IS IN CONTEXT >OF THE SHOW.


What about nudity in a context of false advertising on posters? How do GRADS justify that?

Justin

Hi Gill - well, first off I only see about a third of everything I want to see, due to lack of time and/or money (usually have one or the other but rarely both!)
Priorities for me are shows that my friends are in, as I want to support their work. Aside from that, I'm attracted to shows that are different & likely to exercise my brain. I tend towards musicals as I do a lot of them myself as do my friends, but often find "straight" plays a bit more challenging than mainstream musicals.
I find I go to shows for a bit of research as well into different clubs/companies as well as playwrights. Being a fairly recent import to WA, this helps give me some background into the local scene.
As for time & place: I have a lovely partner whom I drag to enough of my own shows, so unless it's one I expect he'll love, I try not to inflict too much extra theatre on him at a time... We are a 1 car family & my partner works long hours, so when I go alone I need it to be somewhere transit-friendly - especially at night.

Hope this helps some - Lisa

I must admit that the ads that grab my eye and I'm more likely to go see are ones I've studied, that are considered 'classics', or that are especially well known. And I always try to make the shows put on by my two native clubs(KTW and Grads), but I'm lucky with them because it's close to both my homes and if I volunteer for FOH I can see the show for free. As for the friends thing - I have so many mates in the industry - both pro and am, that if I tried to see all their shows as well as do my own, that I'd be out every night and out of pocket a lot of the time (- hey wait - that's without seeing the shows!!) Alot of my mates can't make all my shows, so I understand where they are coming from too.

I think this is a very pertinent question. Granted I have not seen "R+J", but I am under the impression that the audacity that was exhibited in the poster is not being transferred to the stage. If I am right, I would be very interested to find why this is so. Is this because the leads were not prepared to take the same risks in front of a live audience or is GRADS somehow dissuaded from displaying nudity on the stage?

Cheers,
Warren Herbu.

I saw the show, and the poster reflected nothing that I saw on stage. The leads played their roles as nothing older than 13 or 14 years olds (fair enough, too) but without any sexuality in their roles at all. I think this is an admirable way to direct the play, and it is the way I would do it myself. However - the marketing of the show promises something completely different, and I would suggest that GRADS used this approach for marketing the show to titillate a prospective audience into coming along to see a fairly limp and lifeless rendition of the play.

Simply my opinion.
JH

Hi

I'm not really sure if I can answer all the criteria listed.
So, I'll just tell you what shows I've seen recently and you can draw your own conclusions.
Fat Nancy and the Snail - Homested theatre.
Certified Male - Art Cackle and Hoot Entertainment
Face to Face - Perth Theatre Co.
Romeo and Juliet - Grads
Closer than Ever - Playlovers

I realise that this doesn't really add anything constructive to the debate but at least you now know what one theatre going patron goes to see.

Thank you

Hi Warren

Warren Herbu wrote:
-------------------------------
> I think this is a very pertinent question.

funnily enough i'm not aware that anyone has rung up to make sure people actually do appear naked before attending the show, but i know several have rung to make sure there is no nudity and it's safe to take the kiddies.

i wonder if the questions would have been so pertinent if the design had featured an apple?

> Is this because the leads were not prepared to take the
> same risks in front of a live audience or is GRADS somehow
> dissuaded from displaying nudity on the stage?

neither.

a poster serves the primary duty of catching people's interest, secondarily creating a desire to see the show, thirdly informing them of any necessary details.

Cheers
Grant

Hey there Grant,

Grant Malcolm wrote:
----------------------------

>funnily enough i'm not aware that anyone has rung up to >make sure people actually do appear naked before attending >the show, but i know several have rung to make sure there is >no nudity and it's safe to take the kiddies."

When I said that it was a pertinent question I meant it in the context of a poster accurately reflecting the nature of the show. In my opinion, the poster for "R+J" made me think that it was going to be a soft-core porn version of Shakespeare's star-crossed lovers (which is of course why people have been ringing up to see if they can take their kids). I'm not saying that I wouldn't see it just because I have found out that there is no nudity; I'm just saying that the term 'false advertising' comes to mind.

>i wonder if the questions would have been so pertinent if the >design had featured an apple?

Haha, no, i guess not, but c'mon Grant, nudity and apples inspire very different thoughts, notions and desires. :)

>a poster serves the primary duty of catching people's interest, >secondarily creating a desire to see the show, thirdly informing >them of any necessary details.

Absolutely. And you have to applaud the marketing campaign behind the show for it has achieved all three of those aims. However, could it have been done while at the same time remaining faithful to the true nature of what is done on stage in this particular production?

Anyway, look forward to seeing the show if I am able to catch it - nudity or no nudity.

Warren Herbu.

Sorry Grant, but I can't back you on this. While I agree a poster should do the things you mentioned, it shouldn't convey something false or erroneous about the show.
If Woolworths advertise toothpaste at 20 cents and then says "that was just to get your attention, now this is what we want to show you.........." they would be hauled over the coals. Advertise a show with a photo of Nicole Kidman when she isn't in it and you would have a lawsuit slapped on you very quickly.
False advertising is false advertising - no escaping, and that is what GRADS has done.
And really, do you want to attract the sort of people who would be attracted. I went to one of Malcolm Crisps productions that had two women kissing on the poster. Sure it got attention but when it became clear that the impression of the poster was false, the members of the "raincoat brigade" left - during the show! Distracting for performers and audience but the sort of thing that can happen when you tread this path.
Using a poster to attract audience is essential but I think it should be done honestly.

Hi Deano

Dean Schulze wrote:
-------------------------------
> Sorry Grant, but I can't back you on this. While I agree a
> poster should do the things you mentioned, it shouldn't convey
> something false or erroneous about the show.

The poster also displays Romeo and Juliet against a flaming red background but we don't set fire to them during the performance.

I'm waiting for someone to complain that doesn't happen in the play either.

;-)

Cheers
Grant

I'll file that one under "clutching at straws".

Thanks Dean, I wondered how long it would be before I was brought into this argument!

My poster for 'A radical Re-Interpretation: Chekov's the Seagull' depicted two girls kissing. The show not only had two girls kissing but also two guys kissing (one of whom was the director of this much maligned production of R&J) There was certainly NO misrepresentation in regards to our advertising.

And give credit where credit is due: I mangaged to get a wide audience for a Chekhov play with a 9.30pm start time! For a lot of people this was their first introduction to Chekhov. Who cares how they were attired!

And furthermore: For those people saying the poster was the raciest thing about R&J well I did the poster photo - so there!

And Dean if you think I am going to turn the other cheek - well just check out my Dr Koppelius poster in your front window. You'll see I already have...

Malcolm

Malcom Crisp wrote:

> And furthermore: For those people saying the poster was the raciest thing about R&J...

I dunno...I thought that bird in the tiny red dress and the come-[hither]-me boots was a babe...

;-)

Amanda Chesterton

If you add Dr Koppelius to your list you will be even more admired . . . :)

(even if the poster may or may not promise anything)
shell.

I dunno about this whole "where are my naked people? You promised me naked people!!" argument. It's only false advertising if it promises you something and fails to deliver. I don't know if I would see a poster with naked people having it's first and formost function to promise me that there will be naked people in the show. I would see it as conveying the feel of the peice. I mean the poster doesn't have a warning, does it? This should be a pretty good indication that there won't be any nudity.

I don't think play posters are supposed to be taken that seriously. They are there to look pretty, give an aesthetic impression of the mood of the peice and get people in. If they were there to tell people about what to expect in the show, they'd have synopses.

I know this will be contraversial, but you wanted to know Gill.

I don't go to musicals. I don't like them. I respect the amount of hard work and talent that goes into them and I envy those with amazing voices and legs like Robbie Blakney's, but I don't like musicals. I think a lot of people don't. If Playlovers wants to keep doing musicals they have to accept they are shutting out a large portion of their audience who won't come to musicals. While a lot of people will say, "Oh it's a MUSICAL. Oh well I won't go. " I don't think may would say "Oh it's a PLAY. Oh well I won't go".

I don't want to be accused of unfounded prejudice so I will say this; I have been to every Playlovers musical for the past four years. Well, the people I love the most do INSIST on being in all of them, so I don't really have a choice. I go along and I clap and I marvel at their talent, but I'd never go to a musical I don't know anyone in it.

And Closer Than Ever, which may be unbeleivable well renowned amoung the relatively small group of musicals afficionatos, is not only a musical, but it's a musical with no setting, no characters and no plot. Which cuts out the group of musical goer who go because they like the love stories or they like to sing along with the songs.

I'm not telling anyone not to go. I think that anyone who says "Oh I don't like musicals; football; vegemite; dance music or anything else shouldn't knock it until they've given it a go. I myself will be warming a seat in the Closer Than Ever audience tonight and being amazed at the talent radiating off the stage, impressed by the voices and the coreography in an abstract "Gee I could never do that"kind of a way, but if I didn't know someone in the cast and want to support them, I probably wouldn't be there.

So please, Playlovers, continue to provide high quality musicals for those who enjoy them, but don't forget about us non-musical goers (probably the larger proportion of your audience), who like to see a good talkie every now and then.

Hi all,

Thanks for your feedback!

In asking what I asked I was trying to suss out whether it is worthwhile to continue presenting new musicals (my specialty and favourite) because audiences for Closer Than Ever have been small. The feedback on this site has generally not been encouraging but nevertheless I have decided that, yes, it is all worth it.

The experience of doing it has been amazing and even if only a few people come to see and love the show as much as I do, that is enough.

I am a musicals girl through and through and would rather go to a musical than a play anyday (as long as it isn't Oliver, Sound of Music.... any of those over-done but certainly "bums-on-seats" ones).

Leah, I don't agree that Playlovers forget the non-singers though. We always have a good balance between plays and musicals (although I admit that this year is a slightly more musical heavy year than others).

Cheers,
Gill

... or "the fine art of pleasing everyone all the time".

Striking the fine balance between the disciplines of "no-song" and "all-song" is one that many clubs struggle with. And PLEASE let's not get into the semantic idiocy of which is the "more valid form", because as we all know (but may not like to admit) they're BOTH valid. They both entertain.

In my experience (scant as it is) I've found that Playlovers are reknowned for their musicals- it is what they excel at. Reasons for this are mind-fryingly obscure as the acoustics of Hackett Hell/Hole/Hall are virtually nonexistent. And true confession time, I think most musicals I've heard smell to high heaven! However this success, and subsequent focus on muscials, has been tempered by the realisation that the calibre of the musicals Playlovers produce are what bring the folks in- a Playlovers' musical is inevitably regarded as "worth checking out".

Just as Playlovers do "the musical thang" there are clubs out there whose dramas are pretty much their meat 'n potatoes- not a showtoon or sequin in sight! They seem to survive just as well one the one staple.

I guess it's all horses for courses, but getting back to Gill's issue, OF COURSE we should do new works. Our popular culture suffers enough from Death by Nostalgia (check out the popcharts), I wouldn't let the blinkered philistine pig-ignorance of folks who won't go and see anything that isn't "Sound of Music" or "Grease" dissuade you from the importance of bringing new works to fruition.

Eliot... who has just realised how sensible this post has been!... bloody hell... must be fatherhood...

All right. This is it...

All those out there in cyberland who saw the poster for R+J- hands up.

Good.

Right, now all those of you who saw the poster and noticed the lack of clothes- hands up.

Fine.

Now, all those of you who saw the poster and noticed the lack of clothes, and HONESTLY expected there would be nudity in a GRADS production of the show- hands up.

Thought so. Not very many of you, are there??

The poster worked. WHY??? Because it caught the eye. Yes, the unclothed figures on the poster may have had something to do with it, but you cannot deny its success. After all, the throngs of people who have entered into this maelstrom OBVIOUSLY all saw it and took notice.

Congrats to the GRADS and the desinger of said poster- I personally thought it was an excellent job.

And those of you still with yer hands up- go out and have a bonk, fer Gawd's sake!!! :-p

Eliot

Well... If nudity is a major pulling factor for you, then book for "Elizabeth: Almost By Chance A Woman" at Marloo. You will definitely get full rear nudity, and probably full-frontal.

I warn you though, the nude figure in question is a scrawny, unnattractive little man. But hey, if that's what rings your bell...

Personally I thought the advertisement for Romeo & Juliet to be a very good advertising, but by no means did I expect that it would have nudity in it. To me, the picture represents romantic love, which can be a beautiful thing (and sometimes not so beautiful, especially one the truncheons come out). I would've thought that with all these educated adults out there, that if they were going to cogitate deeply on the meaning of the nudity in the photo, that they would come up with some theory involving the naked soul, raw passion, or somesuch. I certainly didn't expect the reaction which seems to have been "Look! BOOBIES!".

I found R&J to be an enjoyable night out, and was even vaguely impressed that the ever so easy to slot in "consumation scene" (a la the Baz Luhrmann film) was not chucked in for the sake of having the actors maul each other. I thought the show showed a good sense of humour and irony. Carried off well by the cast.

Oh, and I agree with Amanda, I thought she was a babe too ;-)