Just a thought...

EMAILNOTICES>noHas anyone actually thought that the reason Effie Crump closed and is not being bailed out is because their productions are not all that good? Every so often one works but the rest... they might be employing actors and local scripts but if the production is up to shite, then why bother?

Hi Alex> Has anyone actually thought that the reason Effie Crump closed> and is not being bailed out is because their productions are not all> that good?i hope you're wearing your asbestos suit.> Every so often one works but the rest... they might be> employing actors and local scripts but if the production is up to> shite, then why bother?That's a sweeping statement to make and i'm not going to attempt to refute it. How can i? You've provided no evidence for your assertion.They might be employing actors? Well, thank goodness someone is!If you want to see this state's professional theatre industry reduced to the occasional populist spectacle for the masses employing out-of-state talent, fine. Trot along to the Perth International Arts Festival pay ridiculous ticket prices to subsidise the freebies provided to the glitterati and have a great time. For 4 weeks of the year.If you want to see a local industry responding to the needs of a local audience then get behind the company that has produced 26 local shows since 1996 and reached an average audience of 18,000 per annum.The much vaunted Cloudstreet now touring internationally, should've been a truly western australian product. It wasn't. It featured a bunch of largely eastern states actors and a director and most other crew shipped in from the east. Why? Because there is not enough happening in Perth to keep good people here and the few good artists to remain don't get the work, experience or exposure they deserve. WA should have had the talent pool to produce this uniquely western australian work. We didn't and we don't.The demise of Effies (and i consider it as good as gone, in spite of Foss' hair splitting) has reduced the output of our local professional industry by nearly one half. The consequences of this will hardly turn around the tide of professional arts trained at WAAPA (at great expense) that leave for the eastern states and overseas.CheersGrant

EMAILNOTICES>noI'm just going on the productions I have seen at Effie's and, frankly, is that's the best professional theatre we can come up with, then I'll stick with community theatre.

EMAILNOTICES>no> I'm just going on the productions I have seen at Effie's and,> frankly, is that's the best professional theatre we can come up with,> then I'll stick with community theatre.--- SAID WITH TONGUE IN CHEEK ---Mff Hmph--- TAKES TONGUE OUT OF CHEEK ---That's better. Not Community Theatre Alex. We are THEATRE period. Why let the public know that don't think highly of ourselves? Let's make them believe that our theatre can be as good as anyone else's.Jeff "Baffle 'Em" Watkins

EMAILNOTICES>noSo why do people on this site constantly refer to professional theatre, as distinct from any other?

Well said - everyone."We are pro - we get paid" with applause.I understand the frustration - but we make the distingtion - IN HOUSE.We are the dagger throwers - we commit the deed and act - "so welcome to theatre where murder is sweetly done".The only time we should disclose the difference - is when we are asked "what have done" and/or on a CV. Or, heaven forbid, when we need our ego stroked, but this never happens.I have been trying for years to develop a word that will take over from Pro & Ammaybe we should hold a poll or comp to see what we come up with - the winner will have their name or other parts of them cemented in to the pavement out side the 'Bell Tower' - you know the one that looks that new Hotel in Dubhi (UAE){I think thats how it is spelt}At least we would have one orginal bit in it.Joe McCabe

EMAILNOTICES>noAlex Said;> So why do people on this site constantly refer to professional> theatre, as distinct from any other?Because of ingrained habit is my guess. It's been an unspoken "rule" for a long long time that Paid Thespians grab all the attention will the unpaids are simply unworthy. Well, that's the feeling I get anyway.Grant Said;>Pro and am are not two sides of the same coin rather they are arbitrary points>on a continuum of performance standards and conditions.More like a square I think. Top Left - UnPaid performers - Bottom Right - Paid Performers -|- Bottom Left - Poor Quality Shows - Top Right - Top Quality Shows. I made a quick image to describe this which I've sent to Grant. Hopefully he'll put this up for me. Please indulge me here. It was a great oppertunity to play around with Photoshop.Joe said;>I have been trying for years to develop a word that will take over from>Pro & Am.My old argument returns - Do we even need a new name? We have one already. All we need do is drop the descriptive term at its front and we're left with theatre. We do Theatre. Whether it is good or bad, whether we are paid or not, we do theatre, and that's all that should matter.Jeff "Theatre for Theatres Sake" Watkins

Hi Alex> I'm just going on the productions I have seen at Effie's and,> frankly, is that's the best professional theatre we can come up with,> then I'll stick with community theatre.Your claim remains unsubstantiated. Hey, you're welcome to your opinion (and to the opportunity to express it here *grin*), but i had hoped you'd have offered some justification for your off hand dismissal of the work done by the company.Casual cyncism is highly fashionable in some circles and but is not always a good indicator of profound intellect or sound judgement.CheersGrant

> So why do people on this site constantly refer to professional theatre, as > distinct from any other?Or for that matter refer to community theatre as distinct from any other?I believe the best community theatre frequently compares very favourably with what is staged by our professional companies.But to say that because, from an audience's point of view, community and professional theatre are occasionally indistinguishable from each other, that they are one and the same is to confuse the issue. I believe they are different. Not opposite, just different.Pro and am are not two sides of the same coin rather they are arbitrary points on a continuum of performance standards and conditions. At one end you have lower standard productions and unpaid performers, at the other end excellent quality productions and fully paid companies and all the colours of the rainbow in between.CheersGrant

EMAILNOTICES>noI should point to the many bad reviews Effie had over the years, from a variety of critics. Yes, there were some good ones. Even I admit there were some good shows. But there was a greater amount of bad ones. And if the bad outweighs the good, what's the point in continuing?

If we are talking about reviews in the mainstream papers, I would suggest that Effie's received more positive reviews than any other West Australian companies.There has been a tendency to slam the local productions over the years.In any case, as a reviewer myself, I often question whether some of my colleagues have seen the show.I remember a case where the review must have been done at the preview as the review appeared in the 'next day's' paper (which would have hit the streets before the show ended). As they reviewed the show before opening night...is it a fair review ? (This wasn't Effie's, but is a quick example of why you need to be careful.)Kim

I have been reading everyones comments with interest....i think if Effie wanted to 'survive' they would....maybe they wouldn't get paid for a while - is that so bad??? There are a lot of people that dont' get paid and put in an awful lot of work....maybe Effie needs to go back to 'grass roots'?? start afresh, work up and become a company again that CAN be paid for their work?? Could it be that simple??Dunno, but it makes sence to me....i see theatre companies survive, put on shows with zilch in the bank....and every one does it for love....sure it's great to be paid...(i know i would like to -oneday)Anyway...maybe its just too simplistic...Teri...

EMAILNOTICES>no> I should point to the many bad reviews Effie had over the years,> from a variety of critics. Yes, there were some good ones. Even I> admit there were some good shows. But there was a greater amount of> bad ones. And if the bad outweighs the good, what's the point in continuing?Just reading through posts again, and something comes to mind.Firstly, I'd like to point out that I am not supporting the Closure of ANY WA Theatrical company. I'm dead against such a thing.However, if Effie had been producing Shows that the majority of the public wanted to see, would they have still been in the predicament that they ended up in? Maybe Effie brought in on themselves by sticking to their guns and doing what THEY wanted as opposed to what would bring the profits? I will not even pretend to guess what Effie's policies regarding this were but if a Profession Theatre company is producing shows that people come to watch, and therefore are doing well business-wise, would they need the support of government funding?I still think it is a sad loss and that maybe the government could have helped out a little bit at the very least, but they didn't. What we need to do know is get over taking it out on the Minister (there'll be plenty of oppertunity for that I'm sure) and look at WHY Effie felt it needed the funding support in the first place.Jeff "Devil's Advocate" Watkins

> However, if Effie had been producing Shows that the majority> of the public wanted to see, would they have still been in the predicament> that they ended up in? Maybe Effie brought in on themselves by sticking> to their guns and doing what THEY wanted as opposed to what would> bring the profits? I will not even pretend to guess what Effie's policies> regarding this were but if a Profession Theatre company is producing> shows that people come to watch, and therefore are doing well business-wise,> would they need the support of government funding?> Jeff "Devil's Advocate" WatkinsI am not sure about the new management, but when it run by Elizabeth, she knew and ensured that she account for every cent. Even when she booked a venue, you would not charge for a piece of gell or gaffer tape, unless you had an order, (writen in blood and had been blessed) or you would hear about it and you would have 3 chances of being paid and yours was not one of them. She was straight, to the piont and did not mess about. She would travel with the Dave's truck, 'bump in and out' along with the other techs.Like every venture and especialy 'shoe string' theatre, you have to watch the cents (reverse charge phone calls to venues - is favourite - along with no comps. I even had to pay for Effie 'T' shirt gifts from them to the crew, but no one minded - because it was Elizabeth). Unfortunetly, with any show - even the greatest - you have to throw money at promotion to ensure the recovery is above expectations, if you have not got the readies, you have to engineer no cost methods. In order to make a show viable a lot of up front is required, as the biggest cost is rehearsals and ensuring the warm props can feed at least once a day. This is while there is no return, only your bank (which costs), thengamble on the bookings, in most venues you won't see this for up to 7 days after you have performed (you can get arrange a sub or spiv as tour cost, about 10%, at a lot of places. This is not always the case?) so effectively, especailt in the country (as 60% of the audiance are walk-ups on the night - they will not pre-book, unless they realise it is close to sold out)you may start seeing the overdraught to reduce after 3 months of starting, in the mean time the house hold ex's goes on and on - a bit like what happens at home.There was one show they did, a sudden storm hit the town the of the day of the first show and only 50 turned up (they were the ones who booked and could not get their money back for not turning up)the rest stayed home, so Effie had to do another one in order to break even. They had to pay for the venue, if they cancel or not - catch 22 or was it now 44? - these things happen! Didn't a famous Gershwin Musical 'bomb out', because the Titanic sank?I can see what your view is about Jeff and it is probably true, as what happend to the infamous Opera Company of the time, in this town, who it was alleged used taxi's to commute the Principle Performers to and from rehearsals and shows, then wondered why they were in IT up to their arm pits - but again I could be totally wrong as it was not made public, just became general gossip.All I can say is Effie was an efficient and cost effect Company, how they got into IT, I don't know - but having been their and had the 'T' shirt for IT - it can't happen in the blink of an eye, unless you are strong enough to sit on it. But, there are always ways and means, for the dying horse to get up - besides flogging it!I know if I offered to do the shows for not cost, this would only be a pimple token.Maybe, we as an ITA collective, could offer to donate our time and efforts to help fill the money money viod, with a production on behalf of Effie. I will be in it for one! So long as the full picture was disclosed first?Lets be pro-active with this pre-negative (I hate these 'globby' terms) and create a working circuit?Joe McCabe

Me thinks there may be more in the wood pile, they can rise even after a fire sale, probably they need to rub two sticks and not a magic lantern and be waiting for the genie?> Anyway...maybe its just too simplistic...> Teri...You have IT - Teri!What they might need is a big K.I.S.S not C.P.R.Sorry! I did not see your posting, before I hit the key and posted to Jeff's, but on reflection, as you and Jeff did, I think what they might need is a "Manager and stop handling themselves" apparently one can become visual impared or at the least short sighted.They might be open to options - interested Teri? - Jeff? - Grant? .....anyone else?????It probably is just a - "get back to the 'green sward' and don't burn the grass?"Joe

> In any case, as a reviewer myself, I often question whether some> of my colleagues have seen the show.> KimThis is worse or in some cases better in the country - most rags ask for a press release and comments from the Director, which are the basis of the crit - word for word.Even to the extent once of having a bit of a going over by a crit printed for the wrong show and a week early (the show opening was 3 days latter). When I asked the editor how this came about he said it was a mix up as he had put the it together with a proir show some how.He also wanted to know, as he was sending his 13year old Daughter to do the crit - this was possibly to ensure he got the right show and it was done properly - could I send him a further 6 comps as she wants to go with a few freinds. I said ~!@#$%^&*...... Sure! what night did you want them for?What ever the show be it good bad or ugly, in most regional areas it has increased the regular punters and helps the local coffee shops and others - Effie and other company's have done a lot for local country Show Biz - as opposed to Artz biz - because they had the guts and took the risk 'to do' 'it' and bring it out of their own back yards into to someone elses.Joe McCabe

Quote - "It's time we stood on our own two feet" unquoteHow I have longed for someone ELSE to SAY it.Must be my age but I've never thought much of the idea of "welfare" generally speaking. We should regard any grants/donations etc as a bonus which possibly enables us to do something extra/buy some equipment rather earlier than we would otherwise/make the theatre a bit more comfortable etc.It's better to just get on with it!> Being very good at tracking expenses is one thing. Having the> expenses is another. Having the money to pay for expenses is a third.>> Interesting idea. Become dependant on ourselves. Don't expect> support from government or private sectors (but certainly ask for> it, you might get lucky.)> It is time we stood on our own two feet.> Jeff "Which Foot Forward" Watkins

EMAILNOTICES>noRe: As they reviewed the show before opening night...is it a fair review ? - KimYou have to take into account a couple of factors: whether the theatre in question agreed to a review based on that performance and whether that was the only night a reviewer could attend. A poorer result might have been no review at all if that was the case.Anyway, from past experience, professional previews have never seemed much different to opening nights. By the time they get to the so-called opening night, they have already done a couple of so-called previews and can already succumb to "second-night blues".If the general public are paying money to see previews, then surely it's good enough for a reviewer to see? If the public are getting sub-standard fare, then they're being ripped off.

EMAILNOTICES>noBeing very good at tracking expenses is one thing. Having the expenses is another. Having the money to pay for expenses is a third.>Maybe, we as an ITA collective, could offer to donate our time and efforts to>help fill the money money viod, with a production on behalf of Effie. I will>be in it for one! So long as the full picture was disclosed first?> Lets be pro-active with this pre-negative (I hate these 'globby'> terms) and create a working circuit?Interesting idea. Become dependant on ourselves. Don't expect support from government or private sectors (but certainly ask for it, you might get lucky.)It is time we stood on our own two feet.Jeff "Which Foot Forward" Watkins

Hi Jeff> Just reading through posts again, and something comes to mind.> Firstly, I'd like to point out that I am not supporting the Closure> of ANY WA Theatrical company. I'm dead against such a thing.Glad to hear it, although i wonder how this ties in with the remainder of your argument? :)> However, if Effie had been producing Shows that the majority> of the public wanted to see, would they have still been in the predicament> that they ended up in? Maybe Effie brought in on themselves by sticking> to their guns and doing what THEY wanted as opposed to what would> bring the profits? I will not even pretend to guess what Effie's policies> regarding this were but if a Profession Theatre company is producing> shows that people come to watch, and therefore are doing well business-wise,> would they need the support of government funding?Effies was certainly producing work that the public wanted to see. This company was prolific in its output. I've seen figures suggesting Effies produced as many performances here in Perth as all the other (funded!) local professional companies combined. Almost all their performances were playing to capacity crowds. Indeed, seating capacity may have been part of the problem given the tiny size of their home venue.If you can only sell so many seats and your audience, because of the size of the venue and physical limitations on production values, is only prepared to pay so much per ticket...My understanding is that some years ago Effies obtained a special dispensation from MEAA to pay below award rates for the reasons above and because the company was essentially unfunded.Simply, you had people working in a highly competitive industry being paid below an already low award wage. More recently Effies has taken steps to pay closer to an award rate, however it would seem the reality has been that Effies can't afford to pay the award.Minister Foss clearly has had no sympathy for the actors employed by the company at less than award rates. He's been quoted in the press as saying that arts funding is not an employment subsidy for actors.Well, i for one would sooner see the funding go to actors rather than the bureaucrats that get a million dollar subsidy to sit in empty theatres scheming to import interstate and international shows. What good is that doing our local theatre industry? What support does an imported act at Burswood or the Maj provide for local community theatre?CheersGrant

Hi AlexApologies for the delay in responding to this one.> I should point to the many bad reviews Effie had over the years,> from a variety of critics. Yes, there were some good ones. Even I> admit there were some good shows. But there was a greater amount of> bad ones. And if the bad outweighs the good, what's the point in continuing?A fallacial argument on a couple of counts.I think you're appealing to an authority that really doesn't exist. Local reviewers are great at telling us what they do and don't like, but they can scarcely claim to speak with any authority. A pay cheque doesn't make a critic professional anymore than it makes an actor professional. Without fear of contadiction the reviewers at the West can publish pretty much whatever they please - not a very good guarantee of quality.Secondly, you make a broad and unsubstantiated claim that there have been more bad than good reviews. Even if the reviews were worth the paper they are written on, you're not really offering any evidence.What displeased you so much about the company's work that you don't consider them worth supporting?CheersGrant

Hi Jenny> Like the rest of Perth, I imagine he found most of their shows> crap.That explains it then. The 18,000 people every year who attended shows at Effie Crump must have flown in from out of town to see them.Did you find them "crap"? Clearly your friends did too. Did you just say at the end of the evening, "Oh well, that was crap" and retire to the couch?CheersGrant

EMAILNOTICES>no> Re: What displeased you so much about the company's work that you> don't consider them worth supporting?Like the rest of Perth, I imagine he found most of their shows crap.

EMAILNOTICES>no> Glad to hear it, although i wonder how this ties in with the> remainder of your argument? :)Just the "required" flame retardent cover I apply ;-)> Indeed, seating capacity> may have been part of the problem given the tiny size of their home> venue.Well, that pretty much covers my argument. My inexperience with the Effie theatre shows through. A small theatre and Ticket Prices demands by the public would certainly not have helped the organisation at all.Jeff "I Sit Corrected" Watkins