I am curious.....

How did people like the change of venue ??Also how accurate were everyone's predictions ?I was pretty well in agreeance with the adjudicators except that I thought SNOOPY would be second or third placed musical rather than SOUND OF MUSIC. ( I predicted Snoopy 2nd Me & My Girl 3rd ).I also thought that GARDEN PARTY, DEQ AND KADS' LIPSTICK DREAMS would be in the top 20.In fact I had Lipstick Dreams picked in the top 10. ( So I was way out there ).Am I totally out on a limb here or do I have a special fondness for KADS and Blak Yak ? ( I'm a member of both clubs.....but had nothing to do with any of these shows ). Even critics find it difficult distancing themselves from their home club , I freely admit this.These comments are in no way a criticism of the adjudicators, who do a great job. I'm just interested in sparking a discussion. I was going to try and organise a preFinleys live chat, but couldn't find the time.Kim

hehehe> These comments are in no way a criticism of the adjudicators,> who do a great job. I'm just interested in sparking a discussion.> I was going to try and organise a preFinleys live chat, but couldn't> find the time.this could end up being Pandora's box :)My views on the awards (as opposed to the night itself - which is great idea!) are known to a few people. Feel free to stop reading here if you're fed up with hearing me whinge about the awards :)*steps onto soapbox*I was delighted to see that so many adjudicators' certificates awarded. These recognise what the adjudicators consider to be outstanding achievements throughout the year. The awards are discussed and debated amongst the adjudicators before being decided on.I like this system. It recognises that the opinions of the adjudicators are subjective and encourages them to justify and debate their choices with each other. It appears to me from the range of areas that they have chosen to present certificates in that a great deal of careful consideration was given. Well done!However, personally I think the notion of presenting an overall award for the "best" in theatre and musicals is a nonsense. The system used to arrive at the result is even worse than the notion itself.The recent Finley adjudicator's training session adequately demonstrated what i consider to be the hopelessness of trying arrive at a reasonable consensus on the quality of a performance. The Guild Of Drama Adjudicators marking system is great for arriving at and justifying an individual score - but does nothing to narrow the gap between individuals.As part of their training, the team of potential adjudicators attended the same performance and then gave it marks ranging from 33 to 75 out of 100. Surely, no amount of statistical wizardry can massage any sense out of figures like this - not on a tiny sample of three or so adjudicators attending each performance for the Finley's. The best you can hope for is some notion that some shows belong at the good end of the spectrum and others at the not-so-good. I can't help feeling that any suggestion that you can conceivably rank shows differentiating between 1st, 2nd, 3rd... according to these types of results is a pretense.It doesn't matter how experienced, skilled, knowledgable, fair or otherwise you adjudicators are - if you only ask three people to rank the best movies of the year, you can't claim the results are representative or authoritative.I've been roundly and justifiably criticised by a few friends for trashing the awards system and not offering a constructive solution. I'm afraid i'm no closer today than i was five years ago to being able to offer any suggestions.But i commend the ITA for highlighting the participation of the clubs in the evening's entertainment and for encouraging the presentation of so many adjudicator's certificates.*steps off soapbox*Who's next?:)CheersGrant

Dear Grant,we take your comments on board, in fact many hours are spent each year agonising over the "best" system for encouraging/'rewarding', saying thanks for dedication etc. As I'm sure you know the current award system was 'set up'many years ago under a deed of trust for an award, later split in two for "the best amateur production".I'm not sure how or if this can be altered. You have however given me at least food for thought and as there will be an Adjudicator's meeting early in the new year perhaps this topic should be thrown into the ring.I wonder however what the reaction from clubs would be if we scrapped the current system and simply presented the Adjudicators Awards as a concensus of everyon's views on what they had seen during the year?Anyone reading this, would they let the ITA, and me, know views.I'll think about a club survey, tho past efforts at getting club respones to things like surveys has been less than encouraging. Maybe with the net where it'a a lot easier to dash off a comment we can expect more participation. Kimberley, what are Blak Yak's views??Norma.P.S. Keep on mounting soapbox Grant, it keeps us from becoming complacent!> hehehe> this could end up being Pandora's box :)> My views on the awards (as opposed to the night itself - which> is great idea!) are known to a few people. Feel free to stop reading> here if you're fed up with hearing me whinge about the awards :)> *steps onto soapbox*> I was delighted to see that so many adjudicators' certificates> awarded. These recognise what the adjudicators consider to be outstanding> achievements throughout the year. The awards are discussed and debated> amongst the adjudicators before being decided on.> I like this system. It recognises that the opinions of the adjudicators> are subjective and encourages them to justify and debate their choices> with each other. It appears to me from the range of areas that they> have chosen to present certificates in that a great deal of careful> consideration was given. Well done!> However, personally I think the notion of presenting an overall> award for the "best" in theatre and musicals is a nonsense.> The system used to arrive at the result is even worse than the notion> itself.> The recent Finley adjudicator's training session adequately demonstrated> what i consider to be the hopelessness of trying arrive at a reasonable> consensus on the quality of a performance. The Guild Of Drama Adjudicators> marking system is great for arriving at and justifying an individual> score - but does nothing to narrow the gap between individuals.> As part of their training, the team of potential adjudicators> attended the same performance and then gave it marks ranging from> 33 to 75 out of 100. Surely, no amount of statistical wizardry can> massage any sense out of figures like this - not on a tiny sample> of three or so adjudicators attending each performance for the Finley's.> The best you can hope for is some notion that some shows belong at> the good end of the spectrum and others at the not-so-good. I can't> help feeling that any suggestion that you can conceivably rank shows> differentiating between 1st, 2nd, 3rd... according to these types> of results is a pretense.> It doesn't matter how experienced, skilled, knowledgable, fair> or otherwise you adjudicators are - if you only ask three people to> rank the best movies of the year, you can't claim the results are> representative or authoritative.> I've been roundly and justifiably criticised by a few friends> for trashing the awards system and not offering a constructive solution.> I'm afraid i'm no closer today than i was five years ago to being> able to offer any suggestions.> But i commend the ITA for highlighting the participation of the> clubs in the evening's entertainment and for encouraging the presentation> of so many adjudicator's certificates.> *steps off soapbox*> Who's next?> :)> Cheers> Grant

> I don't think we will ever have the perfect awards system and I think its important to have some sort of recognition.Blak Yak - or part thereof are preparing our directors kit this evening ( a guide for directors ) I will ask people at the meeting.

Dear NormaThanks for your kind response. It's never very pleasant when the very hard work done by a dedicated team is picked over by a relative outsider. But i'm delighted that you've accepted my personal comments in the light they were intended - as opening remarks in a constructive debate.There has always been and doubtless will continue to be rumbling about the overall "best" awards but i'm sure there are very few people that think we may be better off dropping them altogether and keeping only the adjudicators' certificates - i'm almost alone on that one, i suspect :)The Finley Award, as such, provides an important focus for (is this a recent renaming?) the ITA Night. I'm just delighted to see the broadening of scope to highlight the contributions of member clubs and the inclusion of a swag of thoughful and well considered adjudicators' certificates.I do hope we manage to get some debate going on this issue. Newcomers, outsiders and stalwarts alike. (How about it, DC?) I'm sure we can rely on Norma and others who read this message board to forward constructive suggestions to the adjudicators meeting in January."Complacency" is scarcely something the ITA could be accused of! The ITA must be one of the most forward-thinking and progressive community organisations in the state and is or should be the envy of community theatres throughout Australia.CheersGrant

I am curious, and admittedlly know little of the Finley awards process, but what is the reason an award is not given for Best Actor/ Actress?PS Loved those Whorehouse men!!!!!Sue

>>I'm not sure of the official explanation as to why there are no individual acting awards but my guess is that under the present system it would not be possible.While there is a category for acting on Finley adjudication sheets, it does not allow for individual appraisal.Formatting individual acting awards would mean each actor would have to be individually scored, which to me would seem a logistical nightmare.Perhaps George Hackett ( who has the best technical grasp of the way the system works of anyone I know ) could explain it better. George ??????Kim

I agree it would be a nightmare to mark for the adjudicators.I certainly wouldnt like to attempt to judge some of those fantastic perfromances, on sunday night alone.on another note, I have a friend interested in branching out into more musicals, and was hoping to find out what other clubs were planning in 1999, to perform???SueAcorn Theatre

GrantI agree and disagree.It is true that all the adjudicators can offer is their subjective opinion of the plays that they have seen throughout the year. That is why the certificates awarded by the ITA state that the certificate is awarded for the 3rd, 2nd, best play/musical as judged by the adjudicators appointed by the ITAHowever I do support the scoring system adopted by the ITA as it ensures that all adjudicators assess productions on a consistent basis and that individual bias for high or low scoring are ironed out. Adjudicators are required to see, and assess, a number of productions so that their marking bias can be calculated and corrected.Because adjudicating is such a subjective matter the ITA are very careful in choosing adjudicators who are, in their opinion, knowledgeable enough to be able to provide a fair and balanced assessment of a wide variety of productions. The ITA also try for a range of people as adjudicators so, as far as possible, we are not all male and over 50. (See next months Link for the 1999 adjudicators)One of the common errors for new adjudicators is to assess the play and not the production. I think this could well be the reason for the wide range of scores at the recent adjudicators course. An experienced adjudicator should be able to mark highly a well produced play (or musical) that he/she does not particularly like.I agree with you that there will always be disagreement because we are all different (thank God!) and we all like different aspects of a production. But I support the recognition of the best play/musical and I personally will always be amenable to improvements in the error prone system that we are currently using.George> hehehe> this could end up being Pandora's box :)> My views on the awards (as opposed to the night itself - which> is great idea!) are known to a few people. Feel free to stop reading> here if you're fed up with hearing me whinge about the awards :)> *steps onto soapbox*> I was delighted to see that so many adjudicators' certificates> awarded. These recognise what the adjudicators consider to be outstanding> achievements throughout the year. The awards are discussed and debated> amongst the adjudicators before being decided on.> I like this system. It recognises that the opinions of the adjudicators> are subjective and encourages them to justify and debate their choices> with each other. It appears to me from the range of areas that they> have chosen to present certificates in that a great deal of careful> consideration was given. Well done!> However, personally I think the notion of presenting an overall> award for the "best" in theatre and musicals is a nonsense.> The system used to arrive at the result is even worse than the notion> itself.> The recent Finley adjudicator's training session adequately demonstrated> what i consider to be the hopelessness of trying arrive at a reasonable> consensus on the quality of a performance. The Guild Of Drama Adjudicators> marking system is great for arriving at and justifying an individual> score - but does nothing to narrow the gap between individuals.> As part of their training, the team of potential adjudicators> attended the same performance and then gave it marks ranging from> 33 to 75 out of 100. Surely, no amount of statistical wizardry can> massage any sense out of figures like this - not on a tiny sample> of three or so adjudicators attending each performance for the Finley's.> The best you can hope for is some notion that some shows belong at> the good end of the spectrum and others at the not-so-good. I can't> help feeling that any suggestion that you can conceivably rank shows> differentiating between 1st, 2nd, 3rd... according to these types> of results is a pretense.> It doesn't matter how experienced, skilled, knowledgable, fair> or otherwise you adjudicators are - if you only ask three people to> rank the best movies of the year, you can't claim the results are> representative or authoritative.> I've been roundly and justifiably criticised by a few friends> for trashing the awards system and not offering a constructive solution.> I'm afraid i'm no closer today than i was five years ago to being> able to offer any suggestions.> But i commend the ITA for highlighting the participation of the> clubs in the evening's entertainment and for encouraging the presentation> of so many adjudicator's certificates.> *steps off soapbox*> Who's next?> :)> Cheers> Grant

Hi SueI think you have answered your own question - it would be a nightmare. You can see from Grant that our attempts to judge the "best" play are supject to critisism, can you imagine what it would be like if we tried to recognise individuals for whatever reason.George> I agree it would be a nightmare to mark for the adjudicators.>> I certainly wouldnt like to attempt to judge some of those fantastic> perfromances, on sunday night alone.> on another note, I have a friend interested in branching out> into more musicals, and was hoping to find out what other clubs were> planning in 1999, to perform???> Sue> Acorn Theatre

Dear Grant,Thank you for those kind words, I /we shall cherish them when the next lot of critisism comes our way! Seriously, all systems and methods of doing things should be critically evaluated every so often, it is so easy to say "well it (whatever 'it'is)has worked for the past x years lets leave it alone". I am constantly frustrated by seeing things that need doing/changing and simply not having the resources to cope, I don't necessarily mean money, tho a bit more would be nice.It would be SO good to be able to pay a full/part time worker to cope with the sheer amount of routine work involved to free some of us for intellectual matters!We have had some comments asking why no individual acting awards in the Finley system. The Awards were not set up as an individual award, that's really for the Drama Festival (yes I know thats all one-acters!) The Finley Deed of Trust says "...for the Best production by an amateur company in WA" Originally it was just that, one award, full stop. The Adjudicator's certificates/awards are a fairly recent innovation as they recognised the shortcomings. We are trying to refine the system, so please keep your (constructive) comments coming.Norma Davis.> Dear Norma> Thanks for your kind response. It's never very pleasant when> the very hard work done by a dedicated team is picked over by a relative> outsider. But i'm delighted that you've accepted my personal comments> in the light they were intended - as opening remarks in a constructive> debate.> There has always been and doubtless will continue to be rumbling> about the overall "best" awards but i'm sure there are very> few people that think we may be better off dropping them altogether> and keeping only the adjudicators' certificates - i'm almost alone> on that one, i suspect :)> The Finley Award, as such, provides an important focus for (is> this a recent renaming?) the ITA Night. I'm just delighted to see> the broadening of scope to highlight the contributions of member clubs> and the inclusion of a swag of thoughful and well considered adjudicators'> certificates.> I do hope we manage to get some debate going on this issue. Newcomers,> outsiders and stalwarts alike. (How about it, DC?) I'm sure we can> rely on Norma and others who read this message board to forward constructive> suggestions to the adjudicators meeting in January.> "Complacency" is scarcely something the ITA could be> accused of! The ITA must be one of the most forward-thinking and progressive> community organisations in the state and is or should be the envy> of community theatres throughout Australia.> Cheers> Grant>