The Problems With the Canberra Theatre Scene #2

Firstly, thank you to everyone for such a warm and constructive reaction. There are already many positive discussions going on, both in comments here and on Facebook, and I think that is the next step in solving the problem.

4. Repetition, Repetition, Let's Sing It Again
I love the classics. They're classics for a reason: everybody can relate to them and enjoy them. But I also like things I haven't seen before, which is apparently too big a gamble for many theatre companies in Canberra. We see the same shows re-produced in what appears to be a seven year cycle, and nobody seems to bat an eyelid.
I get it, why would you chance a new show that people might not like, or may not even come to because they've never heard of it. I understand that in order to survive in their already difficult financial position, theatre companies need to bank on "sure things". But why do they always have to be the same "sure things" over and over again.
I think that once something begins to get a "Oh, we're doing THAT again, are we?" reputation (like Philo doing Les Mis), it should be retired for a decade. This has nothing to do with the quality of the productions or the good intentions of the companies; it's about keeping theatre interesting. While Philo's last Les Mis gave us no data to support this, I worry that repetition of other shows may drive off audiences, because they, like the actors, may not want to experience the same show again.
This is where tremendous kudos go to Repertory, Everyman and Centrepiece, and even the Q, because they are willing to follow their artistic interests and trust enough that audiences will come along for the ride. And by closing, they're usually right.
I think there will always be a place for the classics, both done as classics and "re-imagined" (if done well), but I'm suggesting that maybe some companies need to broaden their horizons a little.


5. Ticket Prices
A night out for two at the theatre isn't cheap. By the time you've paid almost $80 for tickets, purchased some drinks at the bar, got the programme, had dinner etc, you're nearing the $100 mark.*
There are MANY reasons why this happens. Production costs, costume budgets, set budgets, theatre hire (and all the extra staff you have to pay for if that theatre is the Q), show rights etc cost money, and that has to come from somewhere. It is arguably a necessary evil.
But it places tremendous strain on the production. In the first place, hundreds of people look at the theatre price and decide that they don't want to pay that much money to see amateurs perform (unless they have friends in the cast). Lower ticket prices and student rush nights have proven to be effective in attracting and re-attracting crowds.
On top of that, as That Guy Who Watches Canberra Theatre has pointed out, there is the huge strain on the performers. Inexperienced and "untrained" (either formally or simply through experience) performers get stuck with a slightly-resentful audience before the house lights go down. They then get to fight the uphill battle to curtain call. I think companies need to look at the calibre of what they're producing and adjust the pricing accordingly. That or, heaven forbid what this may cause, look at the ticket price and use that as a marker for what the quality of the show should be.

*Pricing not 100% accurate. For purists out there, if tickets are $45 each (a standard), it's actually $90 for two (obviously), but I was being generous. Followed by a trip to the bar, you've reached $100. Programs and dinner cost extra, obviously. The pricing provided in the above section is meant purely as an example. That fact that it is lower than the actual cost of a night at the theatre speaks volumes. Regardless, anyone actually understanding the point of the article can figure that out... A hint is that it is in the heading...


As usual, comments welcome (as long as they're not a pedantic waste of everyone's time) and more posts to come