The crgwllms 'Fire Triangle' Theory of Theatre
Wed, 15 May 2002, 04:16 pmcrgwllms16 posts in thread
The crgwllms 'Fire Triangle' Theory of Theatre
Wed, 15 May 2002, 04:16 pmSometimes on this board there have been arguments that questioned the "actor-centric" leanings of most of the points of view, and tried to give greater emphasis to other components, particularly the contribution by writers.
Anyone who has ploughed through my frequent ravings would realise that I have quite a respect for words and those who know how to manipulate them; but I still maintain that actors must unavoidably remain the centre of attention in theatre, above writers and everyone else.... except the audience.
The argument I have been developing to justify this is now my "Fire Triangle Theory" of Theatre.
When firefighters talk about a "fire triangle" they refer to a theoretic model with three equal sides that represent the three elements necessary to sustain a fire. The three sides are 'heat', 'oxygen', and 'fuel'. Take away any one of the three, and the fire will dissipate and cease to exist.
Sometimes you need a catalyst - usually a spark or ignition to generate the required amount of heat - but if the three elements are there in the correct proportions, you will have a fire. To extinguish it, remove any side of the triangle.
I think theatre operates under a similar model. The three sides to the triangle are "performers", "performance" and "audience". These are the minimum requirements to create theatre; remove any one of them and theatre ceases to exist.
The performance is the "heat". It is a pure, raw energy that exists in a particular space at a particular time. Without the performance, you merely have actors meeting an audience; it's not theatre.
The audience is the "oxygen". They fan the theatre production (...wonderful pun opportunity about "fans"...) and give it the life support it needs to exist. Starved of an audience, there is no theatre, it becomes simply a rehearsal.
Performers are the "fuel". They are the element that feeds theatre, and creates the tangible mass that emits that performance energy. (Some performers burn better, and create more heat, than others.) Without performers, theatre ceases to exist in the present. An audience can watch a performance that has already happened, but that's not theatre, it's a film.
The elements are interrelated and effect each other....the audience has an effect on both performers and performance; the performers effect the performance and the audience; and the performance influences audience and performer. The theatre event is live, dynamic, spontaneous, and can never be exactly recreated - just like the individual flame in a fire.
Under this definition, theatre does not require a venue. Theatre can happen in the classroom, in the street, at work; anywhere there are performers performing live to an audience. It includes a wide variety of genres, including dance, puppetry, live music concerts, or your uncle telling a joke at your Christmas dinner...all of these can be considered forms of "theatre". Sports events, while very similar in some regards, aren't the same as theatre because the game can be played and enjoyed by the players whether there is an audience or not. With or without the spectators, sport still has a purpose. Theatre without an audience is pointless.
Like a fire, there are many complex ways in which theatre can exist. Other elements can be introduced, but none of them are essential to the "theatre triangle". However, they nevertheless serve to focus and facilitate it:
The director - theatre can exist without directors, but they are like the person who builds the fire; striking the match and deciding when to pile more wood on, to keep the flame burning all night for maximum warmth, without it getting out of control.
The writer - theatre can also exist without writers, but they are like the person who invented matches, allowing the whole process to be created simply and efficiently, rather than just rubbing sticks together or waiting for lightning to strike. They are also responsible for whether the flame is created as a flickering candle or an oxy-acetylene blowtorch, depending on your heat requirements.
Designers and technicians - are responsible for containing the flame, making it visible to the eye, harnessing the energy to illuminate a particular subject, and framing it so we enjoy watching it and feeling its heat in safety.
Critics - are the ones who (after the fire has gone out) try to describe what the flickers of flame looked like, how well the fuel caught fire, and how efficiently, in their opinion, the fire consumed oxygen. What they saw in the embers, however, depends entirely on the particular angle from which they were looking, and whether or not the smoke blew in their eyes.
Arts funding bodies - are the ones who debate whether we should really be spending money on lighting fires anyway; can't you just keep warm by putting on an extra footy jumper?
Similar models probably exist for other artforms, in which the performer is much further down the scale, or not actually necessary. The three important elements of a novel or poem are the writer, the written words, and the reader, but time is no longer a constant in the equation, so it's not necessary to have all three present at the one time for the medium to work. The reader and the words don't need the presence of the writer, although his/her importance is implicitly acknowledged.
The actor and the writer are important in a film, but neither are absolutely essential. More important are the director, the camera operator, and the editor.
But in theatre, the importance of the actor is implicit in its definition:
performer, performance, audience.
Sorry guys, you're stuck with us.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
Anyone who has ploughed through my frequent ravings would realise that I have quite a respect for words and those who know how to manipulate them; but I still maintain that actors must unavoidably remain the centre of attention in theatre, above writers and everyone else.... except the audience.
The argument I have been developing to justify this is now my "Fire Triangle Theory" of Theatre.
When firefighters talk about a "fire triangle" they refer to a theoretic model with three equal sides that represent the three elements necessary to sustain a fire. The three sides are 'heat', 'oxygen', and 'fuel'. Take away any one of the three, and the fire will dissipate and cease to exist.
Sometimes you need a catalyst - usually a spark or ignition to generate the required amount of heat - but if the three elements are there in the correct proportions, you will have a fire. To extinguish it, remove any side of the triangle.
I think theatre operates under a similar model. The three sides to the triangle are "performers", "performance" and "audience". These are the minimum requirements to create theatre; remove any one of them and theatre ceases to exist.
The performance is the "heat". It is a pure, raw energy that exists in a particular space at a particular time. Without the performance, you merely have actors meeting an audience; it's not theatre.
The audience is the "oxygen". They fan the theatre production (...wonderful pun opportunity about "fans"...) and give it the life support it needs to exist. Starved of an audience, there is no theatre, it becomes simply a rehearsal.
Performers are the "fuel". They are the element that feeds theatre, and creates the tangible mass that emits that performance energy. (Some performers burn better, and create more heat, than others.) Without performers, theatre ceases to exist in the present. An audience can watch a performance that has already happened, but that's not theatre, it's a film.
The elements are interrelated and effect each other....the audience has an effect on both performers and performance; the performers effect the performance and the audience; and the performance influences audience and performer. The theatre event is live, dynamic, spontaneous, and can never be exactly recreated - just like the individual flame in a fire.
Under this definition, theatre does not require a venue. Theatre can happen in the classroom, in the street, at work; anywhere there are performers performing live to an audience. It includes a wide variety of genres, including dance, puppetry, live music concerts, or your uncle telling a joke at your Christmas dinner...all of these can be considered forms of "theatre". Sports events, while very similar in some regards, aren't the same as theatre because the game can be played and enjoyed by the players whether there is an audience or not. With or without the spectators, sport still has a purpose. Theatre without an audience is pointless.
Like a fire, there are many complex ways in which theatre can exist. Other elements can be introduced, but none of them are essential to the "theatre triangle". However, they nevertheless serve to focus and facilitate it:
The director - theatre can exist without directors, but they are like the person who builds the fire; striking the match and deciding when to pile more wood on, to keep the flame burning all night for maximum warmth, without it getting out of control.
The writer - theatre can also exist without writers, but they are like the person who invented matches, allowing the whole process to be created simply and efficiently, rather than just rubbing sticks together or waiting for lightning to strike. They are also responsible for whether the flame is created as a flickering candle or an oxy-acetylene blowtorch, depending on your heat requirements.
Designers and technicians - are responsible for containing the flame, making it visible to the eye, harnessing the energy to illuminate a particular subject, and framing it so we enjoy watching it and feeling its heat in safety.
Critics - are the ones who (after the fire has gone out) try to describe what the flickers of flame looked like, how well the fuel caught fire, and how efficiently, in their opinion, the fire consumed oxygen. What they saw in the embers, however, depends entirely on the particular angle from which they were looking, and whether or not the smoke blew in their eyes.
Arts funding bodies - are the ones who debate whether we should really be spending money on lighting fires anyway; can't you just keep warm by putting on an extra footy jumper?
Similar models probably exist for other artforms, in which the performer is much further down the scale, or not actually necessary. The three important elements of a novel or poem are the writer, the written words, and the reader, but time is no longer a constant in the equation, so it's not necessary to have all three present at the one time for the medium to work. The reader and the words don't need the presence of the writer, although his/her importance is implicitly acknowledged.
The actor and the writer are important in a film, but neither are absolutely essential. More important are the director, the camera operator, and the editor.
But in theatre, the importance of the actor is implicit in its definition:
performer, performance, audience.
Sorry guys, you're stuck with us.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
crgwllmsWed, 15 May 2002, 04:16 pm
Sometimes on this board there have been arguments that questioned the "actor-centric" leanings of most of the points of view, and tried to give greater emphasis to other components, particularly the contribution by writers.
Anyone who has ploughed through my frequent ravings would realise that I have quite a respect for words and those who know how to manipulate them; but I still maintain that actors must unavoidably remain the centre of attention in theatre, above writers and everyone else.... except the audience.
The argument I have been developing to justify this is now my "Fire Triangle Theory" of Theatre.
When firefighters talk about a "fire triangle" they refer to a theoretic model with three equal sides that represent the three elements necessary to sustain a fire. The three sides are 'heat', 'oxygen', and 'fuel'. Take away any one of the three, and the fire will dissipate and cease to exist.
Sometimes you need a catalyst - usually a spark or ignition to generate the required amount of heat - but if the three elements are there in the correct proportions, you will have a fire. To extinguish it, remove any side of the triangle.
I think theatre operates under a similar model. The three sides to the triangle are "performers", "performance" and "audience". These are the minimum requirements to create theatre; remove any one of them and theatre ceases to exist.
The performance is the "heat". It is a pure, raw energy that exists in a particular space at a particular time. Without the performance, you merely have actors meeting an audience; it's not theatre.
The audience is the "oxygen". They fan the theatre production (...wonderful pun opportunity about "fans"...) and give it the life support it needs to exist. Starved of an audience, there is no theatre, it becomes simply a rehearsal.
Performers are the "fuel". They are the element that feeds theatre, and creates the tangible mass that emits that performance energy. (Some performers burn better, and create more heat, than others.) Without performers, theatre ceases to exist in the present. An audience can watch a performance that has already happened, but that's not theatre, it's a film.
The elements are interrelated and effect each other....the audience has an effect on both performers and performance; the performers effect the performance and the audience; and the performance influences audience and performer. The theatre event is live, dynamic, spontaneous, and can never be exactly recreated - just like the individual flame in a fire.
Under this definition, theatre does not require a venue. Theatre can happen in the classroom, in the street, at work; anywhere there are performers performing live to an audience. It includes a wide variety of genres, including dance, puppetry, live music concerts, or your uncle telling a joke at your Christmas dinner...all of these can be considered forms of "theatre". Sports events, while very similar in some regards, aren't the same as theatre because the game can be played and enjoyed by the players whether there is an audience or not. With or without the spectators, sport still has a purpose. Theatre without an audience is pointless.
Like a fire, there are many complex ways in which theatre can exist. Other elements can be introduced, but none of them are essential to the "theatre triangle". However, they nevertheless serve to focus and facilitate it:
The director - theatre can exist without directors, but they are like the person who builds the fire; striking the match and deciding when to pile more wood on, to keep the flame burning all night for maximum warmth, without it getting out of control.
The writer - theatre can also exist without writers, but they are like the person who invented matches, allowing the whole process to be created simply and efficiently, rather than just rubbing sticks together or waiting for lightning to strike. They are also responsible for whether the flame is created as a flickering candle or an oxy-acetylene blowtorch, depending on your heat requirements.
Designers and technicians - are responsible for containing the flame, making it visible to the eye, harnessing the energy to illuminate a particular subject, and framing it so we enjoy watching it and feeling its heat in safety.
Critics - are the ones who (after the fire has gone out) try to describe what the flickers of flame looked like, how well the fuel caught fire, and how efficiently, in their opinion, the fire consumed oxygen. What they saw in the embers, however, depends entirely on the particular angle from which they were looking, and whether or not the smoke blew in their eyes.
Arts funding bodies - are the ones who debate whether we should really be spending money on lighting fires anyway; can't you just keep warm by putting on an extra footy jumper?
Similar models probably exist for other artforms, in which the performer is much further down the scale, or not actually necessary. The three important elements of a novel or poem are the writer, the written words, and the reader, but time is no longer a constant in the equation, so it's not necessary to have all three present at the one time for the medium to work. The reader and the words don't need the presence of the writer, although his/her importance is implicitly acknowledged.
The actor and the writer are important in a film, but neither are absolutely essential. More important are the director, the camera operator, and the editor.
But in theatre, the importance of the actor is implicit in its definition:
performer, performance, audience.
Sorry guys, you're stuck with us.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
Anyone who has ploughed through my frequent ravings would realise that I have quite a respect for words and those who know how to manipulate them; but I still maintain that actors must unavoidably remain the centre of attention in theatre, above writers and everyone else.... except the audience.
The argument I have been developing to justify this is now my "Fire Triangle Theory" of Theatre.
When firefighters talk about a "fire triangle" they refer to a theoretic model with three equal sides that represent the three elements necessary to sustain a fire. The three sides are 'heat', 'oxygen', and 'fuel'. Take away any one of the three, and the fire will dissipate and cease to exist.
Sometimes you need a catalyst - usually a spark or ignition to generate the required amount of heat - but if the three elements are there in the correct proportions, you will have a fire. To extinguish it, remove any side of the triangle.
I think theatre operates under a similar model. The three sides to the triangle are "performers", "performance" and "audience". These are the minimum requirements to create theatre; remove any one of them and theatre ceases to exist.
The performance is the "heat". It is a pure, raw energy that exists in a particular space at a particular time. Without the performance, you merely have actors meeting an audience; it's not theatre.
The audience is the "oxygen". They fan the theatre production (...wonderful pun opportunity about "fans"...) and give it the life support it needs to exist. Starved of an audience, there is no theatre, it becomes simply a rehearsal.
Performers are the "fuel". They are the element that feeds theatre, and creates the tangible mass that emits that performance energy. (Some performers burn better, and create more heat, than others.) Without performers, theatre ceases to exist in the present. An audience can watch a performance that has already happened, but that's not theatre, it's a film.
The elements are interrelated and effect each other....the audience has an effect on both performers and performance; the performers effect the performance and the audience; and the performance influences audience and performer. The theatre event is live, dynamic, spontaneous, and can never be exactly recreated - just like the individual flame in a fire.
Under this definition, theatre does not require a venue. Theatre can happen in the classroom, in the street, at work; anywhere there are performers performing live to an audience. It includes a wide variety of genres, including dance, puppetry, live music concerts, or your uncle telling a joke at your Christmas dinner...all of these can be considered forms of "theatre". Sports events, while very similar in some regards, aren't the same as theatre because the game can be played and enjoyed by the players whether there is an audience or not. With or without the spectators, sport still has a purpose. Theatre without an audience is pointless.
Like a fire, there are many complex ways in which theatre can exist. Other elements can be introduced, but none of them are essential to the "theatre triangle". However, they nevertheless serve to focus and facilitate it:
The director - theatre can exist without directors, but they are like the person who builds the fire; striking the match and deciding when to pile more wood on, to keep the flame burning all night for maximum warmth, without it getting out of control.
The writer - theatre can also exist without writers, but they are like the person who invented matches, allowing the whole process to be created simply and efficiently, rather than just rubbing sticks together or waiting for lightning to strike. They are also responsible for whether the flame is created as a flickering candle or an oxy-acetylene blowtorch, depending on your heat requirements.
Designers and technicians - are responsible for containing the flame, making it visible to the eye, harnessing the energy to illuminate a particular subject, and framing it so we enjoy watching it and feeling its heat in safety.
Critics - are the ones who (after the fire has gone out) try to describe what the flickers of flame looked like, how well the fuel caught fire, and how efficiently, in their opinion, the fire consumed oxygen. What they saw in the embers, however, depends entirely on the particular angle from which they were looking, and whether or not the smoke blew in their eyes.
Arts funding bodies - are the ones who debate whether we should really be spending money on lighting fires anyway; can't you just keep warm by putting on an extra footy jumper?
Similar models probably exist for other artforms, in which the performer is much further down the scale, or not actually necessary. The three important elements of a novel or poem are the writer, the written words, and the reader, but time is no longer a constant in the equation, so it's not necessary to have all three present at the one time for the medium to work. The reader and the words don't need the presence of the writer, although his/her importance is implicitly acknowledged.
The actor and the writer are important in a film, but neither are absolutely essential. More important are the director, the camera operator, and the editor.
But in theatre, the importance of the actor is implicit in its definition:
performer, performance, audience.
Sorry guys, you're stuck with us.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
TinaFri, 17 May 2002, 08:31 pm
Re: The crgwllms
Hey Craig - I like it!
Then a question arose in my mind - who is it who sees the fire as only a danger and puts it out with a fire extinguisher?
Answer... the insurance company who demands such an exorbitant sum for public liability insurance for a 2 week show that it is fizzles out in the early stages!!!!
:)
Tina
Alan!Fri, 17 May 2002, 11:47 pm
Re: The crgwllms
*round of applause*
I am currently facing having to take out insurance as a technician, and am well aware of theatre companies having that as their main cost besides royalties.
I do believe however, that it is a necessity. I wouldn't like to be responsible for financial costs incurred because of... well anything.
I was tech'ing a show last year where a group of youths set fire to a tree (while there was a full house) on the outside of the theatre, closest to USL and the costume room. And I know that accidents, and not-so-accidents do occur. Unfortunately, premiums are rising because of both the huge costs involved when things do go wrong, and other financial/political bs.
Can we complain about tax now?
Alan!
I am currently facing having to take out insurance as a technician, and am well aware of theatre companies having that as their main cost besides royalties.
I do believe however, that it is a necessity. I wouldn't like to be responsible for financial costs incurred because of... well anything.
I was tech'ing a show last year where a group of youths set fire to a tree (while there was a full house) on the outside of the theatre, closest to USL and the costume room. And I know that accidents, and not-so-accidents do occur. Unfortunately, premiums are rising because of both the huge costs involved when things do go wrong, and other financial/political bs.
Can we complain about tax now?
Alan!
TinaSat, 18 May 2002, 08:29 pm
Re: The crgwllms
You're quite right about the necessity of insurance Alan. I agree.
However, my cynicism was born of a recent show we did where the venue already had public liability insurance but demanded we also have it. This is basically so that if an audience member was injured by one of us actors, performing a 'normal' piece of theatre, that is, no fire, acrobatics or knife throwing involved, their insurance co. could then recoup costs from ours. When we shopped around, the cheapest we could arrange was $850 because they won't insure you for one production, but only for a minimum of a year. Being a small company we would normally only produce one to two projects per year.
Thankfully when we contacted the Fringe Office they assured us we were covered by Fringe insurance for that particular instance. However, if not performed for the Fringe, we would not be able to use that venue due to the high cost, and if other venues insisted on a similar provision we could not afford to stage another production.
And so the insurance drama continues...
However, my cynicism was born of a recent show we did where the venue already had public liability insurance but demanded we also have it. This is basically so that if an audience member was injured by one of us actors, performing a 'normal' piece of theatre, that is, no fire, acrobatics or knife throwing involved, their insurance co. could then recoup costs from ours. When we shopped around, the cheapest we could arrange was $850 because they won't insure you for one production, but only for a minimum of a year. Being a small company we would normally only produce one to two projects per year.
Thankfully when we contacted the Fringe Office they assured us we were covered by Fringe insurance for that particular instance. However, if not performed for the Fringe, we would not be able to use that venue due to the high cost, and if other venues insisted on a similar provision we could not afford to stage another production.
And so the insurance drama continues...
Alan!Sat, 18 May 2002, 11:34 pm
Re: The insurance
$850? ouch.
That really sounds sus. Actors having to pay public liability insurance at all? That just sounds ridiculous.
The Fringe and other companies/arts movements are helpful in providing insurance for actors and techies during employment for them. But, as with some companies (including large theatres), 'freelance' workers, even if full time, must still have their own personal insurance, including public liability.
I think we have managed to totally steer clear of Craig's fire triangle, unfortunately. Oh well.
On an unrelated tangent, if anyone's bored, explore http://homestarrunner.com :
Classic!
Alan
That really sounds sus. Actors having to pay public liability insurance at all? That just sounds ridiculous.
The Fringe and other companies/arts movements are helpful in providing insurance for actors and techies during employment for them. But, as with some companies (including large theatres), 'freelance' workers, even if full time, must still have their own personal insurance, including public liability.
I think we have managed to totally steer clear of Craig's fire triangle, unfortunately. Oh well.
On an unrelated tangent, if anyone's bored, explore http://homestarrunner.com :
Classic!
Alan
TinaSun, 19 May 2002, 09:43 pm
Re: The insurance
Dear Alan
You are quite correct. I have pulled us right off the track when I really did admire the fire triangle theory. However, my honesty demands that I admit the most appealing words for me were...
"I still maintain that actors must unavoidably remain the centre of attention in theatre, above writers and everyone else.... except the audience."
and anyone who can develop an argument to justify such an agreeable statement deserves a drink courtesy of this actor!
Kind regards
Tina
crgwllmsMon, 20 May 2002, 01:14 am
Re: fire insurance
Thanks Tina....I'll take you up on that drink after a show sometime!
Regarding insurance...it's not necessarily an "extinguisher", but it can certainly be a "flame retardant".
When we did "After The Fair" at the Festival Fringe, we DID have firebreathers, knife throwers, and stiltwalkers at risk of falling on the audience,...and I was perched in a precariously high position with no safety wires. The Fringe, managing the venue, apparently has a public liability policy that should cover injuries caused to an audience member in the event of a mishap in the building. But there was no cover in place for if I fell, or if one of the other actors hurt themselves in a stunt.
Strictly speaking, it wasn't a co-op production; we were volunteer performers. Like most of you, we were doing it for the love of the project, not for any payment. (In a true co-op, all participants involved in the profit share are ALSO liable to share any debts). But in the absence of any contract, details like that are unclearly defined and only debated in the event of a dispute, when it's too late.
The cast had a large proportion of actors who frequently get other professional work. I had just signed a large professional contract for a job that would commence soon afterwards (this tour I am on now).
The concern was raised that if, for example, I happened to fall and injure myself - not only could I sue the production for medical costs, but for potential loss of income and professional damages if I missed the tour. Without insurance, the suit would have to be met by the production company, and without proper clauses in a non-existent contract, the cast could be held jointly responsible as if it was a co-op.
Certain members of the cast were most concerned because they obviously couldn't afford to contribute to such a payment, but they owned houses which could be considered seizable assets if the group was liable.
To the producer's (Not The Mama productions) credit, they forked out for the worker's comp insurance, and the production not only went ahead, but they won the Fringe Awards for best local production, and design.
Insurance is a necessary evil. The costs are scary, but the idea of what might happen without it was scarier.
My theory's definition for a "fire extinguisher" might be those Reality TV shows.... there are performances of a sort, and an audience, but the 'performers' are kind of "heat-retardant", and it kind of kills the spark of live theatre.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
Regarding insurance...it's not necessarily an "extinguisher", but it can certainly be a "flame retardant".
When we did "After The Fair" at the Festival Fringe, we DID have firebreathers, knife throwers, and stiltwalkers at risk of falling on the audience,...and I was perched in a precariously high position with no safety wires. The Fringe, managing the venue, apparently has a public liability policy that should cover injuries caused to an audience member in the event of a mishap in the building. But there was no cover in place for if I fell, or if one of the other actors hurt themselves in a stunt.
Strictly speaking, it wasn't a co-op production; we were volunteer performers. Like most of you, we were doing it for the love of the project, not for any payment. (In a true co-op, all participants involved in the profit share are ALSO liable to share any debts). But in the absence of any contract, details like that are unclearly defined and only debated in the event of a dispute, when it's too late.
The cast had a large proportion of actors who frequently get other professional work. I had just signed a large professional contract for a job that would commence soon afterwards (this tour I am on now).
The concern was raised that if, for example, I happened to fall and injure myself - not only could I sue the production for medical costs, but for potential loss of income and professional damages if I missed the tour. Without insurance, the suit would have to be met by the production company, and without proper clauses in a non-existent contract, the cast could be held jointly responsible as if it was a co-op.
Certain members of the cast were most concerned because they obviously couldn't afford to contribute to such a payment, but they owned houses which could be considered seizable assets if the group was liable.
To the producer's (Not The Mama productions) credit, they forked out for the worker's comp insurance, and the production not only went ahead, but they won the Fringe Awards for best local production, and design.
Insurance is a necessary evil. The costs are scary, but the idea of what might happen without it was scarier.
My theory's definition for a "fire extinguisher" might be those Reality TV shows.... there are performances of a sort, and an audience, but the 'performers' are kind of "heat-retardant", and it kind of kills the spark of live theatre.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeMon, 20 May 2002, 08:36 am
The hell that is insurance
I've read these posts above me with a bit of professional interest. Methinks I shall do a bit of research into finding someone/anyone who will do Public Liability for theatre groups (non-professional especially) at a "decent" rate.
Wish me luck.
El
Wish me luck.
El
BarbZMon, 20 May 2002, 12:11 pm
Re: The hell that is insurance
El wrote:
>
> ... Methinks I shall do a bit of research into finding
> someone/anyone who will do Public Liability for theatre
> groups (non-professional especially) at a "decent" rate.
Hasn't it been done already?
If you're an incorporated community theatre group & belong to the ITA you can get insurance at a special rate.
AFAIK the hardest insurance to get isn't Public Liability, it's Voluntary Workers' Insurance - a number of insurers won't cover it & most of those that do put fairly restrictive age limits on it.
BarbZ
[%sig%]
>
> ... Methinks I shall do a bit of research into finding
> someone/anyone who will do Public Liability for theatre
> groups (non-professional especially) at a "decent" rate.
Hasn't it been done already?
If you're an incorporated community theatre group & belong to the ITA you can get insurance at a special rate.
AFAIK the hardest insurance to get isn't Public Liability, it's Voluntary Workers' Insurance - a number of insurers won't cover it & most of those that do put fairly restrictive age limits on it.
BarbZ
[%sig%]
NormaMon, 20 May 2002, 04:13 pm
Re: The hell that is insurance
Members of the ITA can get Voluntary Workers & Public Liability Insurance of $10m under a bulk insurance scheme organised by the Assn of Community Theatres of NSW - ACT. (NSW version of ITA only larger) The ITa is a member of the ACT.
Annual cost is $549 this year (think the figure is correct but I am at home & don't have the papers with me)
Age limit for voluntary workers is 75, with reduced benefits between ages 70 -75.
Brokers are AON
I stress that this is a bulk scheme so groups must be financial members of the ITA to participate. (New membership year starts July 1, a call to the office 9420,7242 will bring you the necessary membership forms, group costs is $75)
Hope this answers some of the questions posted here
Annual cost is $549 this year (think the figure is correct but I am at home & don't have the papers with me)
Age limit for voluntary workers is 75, with reduced benefits between ages 70 -75.
Brokers are AON
I stress that this is a bulk scheme so groups must be financial members of the ITA to participate. (New membership year starts July 1, a call to the office 9420,7242 will bring you the necessary membership forms, group costs is $75)
Hope this answers some of the questions posted here
TinaMon, 20 May 2002, 05:10 pm
Re: insurance hell and reality TV
Yes, but if you are a professional theatre company (albeit small) you don't fit into that category even if you are an incorporated not-for-profit association, as we are. Norma kindly sent us this information and I inspected the forms closely, and we don't.
To further complicate matters, what Craig referred to is worker's comp which is substantially easier and cheaper to organise than what we required, which was insurance to cover an audience member if we injured them during a performance! Which, by the way, has never occurred to this date in Western Australia, to anyone's knowledge.
Yes, El, I would welcome any research that helps us in this way!
And as for Reality TV shows - excellent - my pet hate, let's talk about them! I think they're a perversion of a performance, where the audience thinks it's more acceptable to view this than to look through a $2 peephole while wearing a trench-coat!
Heh heh
Tina
To further complicate matters, what Craig referred to is worker's comp which is substantially easier and cheaper to organise than what we required, which was insurance to cover an audience member if we injured them during a performance! Which, by the way, has never occurred to this date in Western Australia, to anyone's knowledge.
Yes, El, I would welcome any research that helps us in this way!
And as for Reality TV shows - excellent - my pet hate, let's talk about them! I think they're a perversion of a performance, where the audience thinks it's more acceptable to view this than to look through a $2 peephole while wearing a trench-coat!
Heh heh
Tina
crgwllmsMon, 20 May 2002, 10:36 pm
You can't judge a play by its cover
Steve Shaw (ex-WA Equity secretary, now Project Officer at ArtsWA) referred me to a company called "Duck For Cover" (based in Melbourne?) who are apparently pretty good value for arts-related insurance, although I have not yet tried to substanciate this.
Luckily, professional contracts are usually well insured. Looking at the liability payout for the paralysed swimmer at Bondi Beach, it seems we are quickly going the way of the USA as far as lawsuits, so it puts amateur groups in a difficult position.
Worker's comp is a priority for me, as I currently hold the record at Barking Gecko for the number of medical claims based upon on-the-job injuries. (I also got a significant payout in '92 for a performance-threatening injury caused during an accident while travelling between performance venues).
Public liability is always at the back of my mind, because of the number of shows I've done in unfamiliar venues, which involve interacting amongst the audience, often scrambling over them or even lifting them up. (For example, carrying an audience member onto a floating fibreglass raft in the middle of a swimming pool in The Frog Opera!)
But as Tina pointed out, so far nothing serious has happened, unless you count treading on the audiences' toes.
We had an incident recently on this tour, during a part in the second act where Kate Mulvany sits on a gentleman's lap in the auditorium, cuddling him and ruffling his hair...only this particular night the poor guy was wearing a toupee which slipped off sideways! I wonder if public liability would cover us if he wanted to sue for damages to his pride & image?!
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
Luckily, professional contracts are usually well insured. Looking at the liability payout for the paralysed swimmer at Bondi Beach, it seems we are quickly going the way of the USA as far as lawsuits, so it puts amateur groups in a difficult position.
Worker's comp is a priority for me, as I currently hold the record at Barking Gecko for the number of medical claims based upon on-the-job injuries. (I also got a significant payout in '92 for a performance-threatening injury caused during an accident while travelling between performance venues).
Public liability is always at the back of my mind, because of the number of shows I've done in unfamiliar venues, which involve interacting amongst the audience, often scrambling over them or even lifting them up. (For example, carrying an audience member onto a floating fibreglass raft in the middle of a swimming pool in The Frog Opera!)
But as Tina pointed out, so far nothing serious has happened, unless you count treading on the audiences' toes.
We had an incident recently on this tour, during a part in the second act where Kate Mulvany sits on a gentleman's lap in the auditorium, cuddling him and ruffling his hair...only this particular night the poor guy was wearing a toupee which slipped off sideways! I wonder if public liability would cover us if he wanted to sue for damages to his pride & image?!
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
Grant MalcolmTue, 21 May 2002, 09:19 am
To insure or not to...
Hi Tina
> Yes, but if you are a professional theatre company (albeit
> small) you don't fit into that category even if you are an
> incorporated not-for-profit association, as we are.
Practically all theatre companies pay some people to perform services. Many amateur companies would probably be dismayed to discover that they're not as amateur as the think.
> Norma
> kindly sent us this information and I inspected the forms
> closely, and we don't.
You're not alone in running up against this murky area of insurance. Class Act might have a WA solution:
http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=22&i=551&t=550
A search for insurance on this site will doubtless turn up plenty of other examples over the last few years.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
> Yes, but if you are a professional theatre company (albeit
> small) you don't fit into that category even if you are an
> incorporated not-for-profit association, as we are.
Practically all theatre companies pay some people to perform services. Many amateur companies would probably be dismayed to discover that they're not as amateur as the think.
> Norma
> kindly sent us this information and I inspected the forms
> closely, and we don't.
You're not alone in running up against this murky area of insurance. Class Act might have a WA solution:
http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=22&i=551&t=550
A search for insurance on this site will doubtless turn up plenty of other examples over the last few years.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
TinaTue, 21 May 2002, 10:41 pm
Re: Duck for cover
EXCELLENT tip Craig. Damn. I owe you another drink for that. I must start to keep a tab for you. :-)
Thanks heaps
Tina
ABOUT DUCK FOR COVER
Duck For Cover Entertainers Group Inc. is a non profit association (with a volunteer committee) who's purpose is to provide low cost public liability insurance for performers and entertainers by negotiating with insurance brokers for the best price/cover we can get. The committee is based in Melbourne and its six volunteers administer the Association and negotiate with insurance brokers to get the best deal for the members every year.
http://duckforcover.8m.com/
Thanks heaps
Tina
ABOUT DUCK FOR COVER
Duck For Cover Entertainers Group Inc. is a non profit association (with a volunteer committee) who's purpose is to provide low cost public liability insurance for performers and entertainers by negotiating with insurance brokers for the best price/cover we can get. The committee is based in Melbourne and its six volunteers administer the Association and negotiate with insurance brokers to get the best deal for the members every year.
http://duckforcover.8m.com/
Walter PlingeTue, 28 May 2002, 08:25 am
Re: The crgwllms "Fire Triangle" Theory of Theatre
a bit verbose
crgwllmsWed, 5 June 2002, 01:05 am
Re: The "Triangle" turns full circle
the butle wrote:
>
> a bit verbose
Thanks, the butle, for your acute observation. I did, after all, begin my barrage of words with the acknowledgement that "I have quite a respect for words and those who know how to manipulate them".
I take it that you found my idea overwritten; and perhaps would far prefer to see an idea put into action, with immediacy, economy, and clear physical imagery.
So I guess the irony was not lost on you that I too, value a concise reenactment over and above a drawn out drizzle of words....rather the whole point of the essay, wouldn't you say?
Cheers,
Craig
not only verbose,
but nounose
and particularly adjectivous
O thou thing!
>
> a bit verbose
Thanks, the butle, for your acute observation. I did, after all, begin my barrage of words with the acknowledgement that "I have quite a respect for words and those who know how to manipulate them".
I take it that you found my idea overwritten; and perhaps would far prefer to see an idea put into action, with immediacy, economy, and clear physical imagery.
So I guess the irony was not lost on you that I too, value a concise reenactment over and above a drawn out drizzle of words....rather the whole point of the essay, wouldn't you say?
Cheers,
Craig
not only verbose,
but nounose
and particularly adjectivous
O thou thing!