pinkus
Backyard Balladeer
Posts: 11
|
Post by pinkus on Dec 19, 2006 2:35:13 GMT 11
What an absolute joke the result of the 2006 Pratt prize was. If you aren't going to pick a winner, then why pick six finalists. And then having picked the finalists you put out a press release telling the world that none of the finalists are capable of being a commercial success. Nice way to support new work. I am very familiar with three of the six finalists and I can tell you that they are amazing new pieces. and to award two $20,000 prizes to two of the entrants, one of which, The Wild Blue, doesn't even qualify because it has been performed in front of a paying audience is just stupid. $20,000 doesn't help anyone. In musical productions it's chump change. What's happened to the other $40,000 promised. Is Jeanie Pratt buying a new wig? I realize this is a prize designed to help the industry but by denigrating the finalists, only awarding half the advertised prize and diluting it into two smaller prizes, the Pratt prize is a joke. I heard the finalists were not even told of the result. They had to read it in the paper after putting their works on hold for 6 months. Pretty shabby. Let's see some support for the Pratt Prize finalists when they get up and show those dummies on the prize board that they wouldn't know a commercial success if it jumped up and bit them on the bum. Any jerk can produce a classic musical for a four day run and sell seats. How did Hair go? Not so good. Call themselves experts. Tools.
Pinkus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yonkers on Dec 19, 2006 10:15:52 GMT 11
Pinkus, I think I love you!
(See my previous posts on The Production Company).
|
|
pinkus
Backyard Balladeer
Posts: 11
|
Post by pinkus on Dec 20, 2006 0:33:24 GMT 11
Were you involved in one of the finalists or just interested in what idiots can do with money?
Pinkus
|
|
|
|
Post by WillConyers on Dec 20, 2006 6:20:50 GMT 11
Dear Pinkus, If you go to the Broadway at Bedtime website, and follow the links to 'BABcasts' Program 049 includes the article we did on the radio program with one of the Pratt Prize judges, Malcolm Robertson. I think you will find it most interesting. Best, WILL CONYERSHost www.broadwayatbedtime.com |
|
|
|
Post by Yonkers on Dec 20, 2006 10:29:44 GMT 11
Pinkus, I have no involvement in the prize. I am however constantly amazed at how some people, by bending the ear of an arts philanthropist can create ongoing (highly paid) work for themselves year in year out while presenting/promoting generally mediocre entertainments. As you say "any jerk can produce a classic musical for a four day run and sell seats" - particularly if you have as much money as they have to promote it. Two of next years shows have been seen on our professional stage in the last 10 years - hardly money well spent.
|
|
|
|
Post by thoroughlymodern on Dec 21, 2006 0:22:17 GMT 11
"Two of next years shows have been seen on our professional stage in the last 10 years - hardly money well spent. "
Yes, but so have Phantom and Miss Saigon. Your point? Okay, so TPC don't take risks. Okay, so their shows run for 6 days not 6 weeks or months. But f**k me, at least they're doing SOMETHING. They are not only creating jobs for hundreds of people, they are also giving an opportunity for artists to showcase their talents in a capacity that normally wouldn't be viable. Think of what TPC have done for the careers of some of Australia's finest performers - Lucy Durack is one that springs to mind. Someone with that much talent would probably have been successful eventually, but TPC gave her leads in their shows when she was fresh out of WAAPA and she is now one of their biggest success stories.
I don't think the way they run things is perfect, and I think there definitely some changes that could be made - a 10 day rehearsal period takes its toll on everybody and doesn't always make for the best performances - but for the most part, I think we need to support and encourage this sort of thing rather than bitch about it constantly.
"Any jerk can produce a classic musical for a four day run and sell seats." Actually, no they can't. I'd really like to see you try.
|
|
|
|
Post by thoroughlymodern on Dec 21, 2006 0:29:23 GMT 11
"Two of next years shows have been seen on our professional stage in the last 10 years - hardly money well spent."
As far as I know they haven't been announced yet... so you must have some inside knowledge on the company that we don't. By all means, do share!
|
|
|
|
Post by Yonkers on Dec 21, 2006 15:35:55 GMT 11
'thoroughlymodern' you yourself sound like someone with a vested interest. My main beef with them is their strange choice of repetoire too many recently seen (in the last 15 or so years) shows. They should be doing older shows and shows that haven't been seen here before. Case in point, Thoroughly Modern Millie a new show and they did better with that (ticket sales) than any other show previosly. If they have been doing the Pratt Prize for a few years why haven't they themselves presented one of the winners? It isn't showing too much faith in their own judgement.
As for "creating hundreds of jobs" they are providing 2 weeks work for professionals who are then paid minimum rates (some exceptions). It isn't worth the chorus kids leaving better paid temp jobs for a couple of weeks.
As for next year try Chess and Sweet Charity for starters.... just keep my ear to the ground.
Pinkus, your turn!
|
|
|
|
Post by Talissa on Dec 21, 2006 18:45:29 GMT 11
Just a note that, considering this is the first year for TPC to have the Sunday matinee, one should hope that one of the shows this year would have the highest ticket sales to date for the company. So, successful as Millie was, that's an irrelevant argument.
And I hadn't heard Charity yet. Pity Sally's already left the country. She'll be thrilled. Can I ask where you heard?
|
|
|
|
Post by Yonkers on Dec 21, 2006 22:30:05 GMT 11
Yes, you can ask, but I'm not telling. No it isn't a irrelevant argument as I'm talking, not box office gross(which was good) but in terms of how fast tickets moved prior to opening. So now I think your objection is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Talissa on Dec 21, 2006 22:36:16 GMT 11
Irrelevance noted. I stand corrected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yonkers on Dec 21, 2006 22:40:29 GMT 11
See, you are gracious, not like some of people here (no names, no pack drill).
|
|
pinkus
Backyard Balladeer
Posts: 11
|
Post by pinkus on Dec 24, 2006 3:09:50 GMT 11
Re the 2006 Pratt prize, does anybody out there feel it is counterproductive to the industry to release a quote saying "no single musical had the potential to be an outstanding success"? It's a development grant they offer so I guess I feel if they dont want to help in the development of a project they need to try and sabotage any chance it has of getting up through other means. I have inside information that one of the unsuccessful projects is getting financing in place and along with a great cast and amazing director and choreographer is set to open in Melbourne next year. Wont it be great when one of the "finalists" does get up and Ken, John and the rest of the board are invited to opening night and seated behind a pole.
|
|
pinkus
Backyard Balladeer
Posts: 11
|
Post by pinkus on Dec 24, 2006 3:22:56 GMT 11
Thouroughly Modern, I said "Any jerk can produce a classic musical for a four day run and sell seats." meaning it wasn't such a big chalenge to sell 12,000 seats in a city of 3.5 million people. If only one person in 300 comes and sees a classic musical that is heavily promoted and publicised you're full for the run. It actually is fairly safe. When you try and do it for real, eg Hair, welcome to the real world baby. "Any jerk can produce a classic musical for a four day run and sell seats. Actually, no they can't. I'd really like to see you try." I have produced shows and I know how hard it is although you didn't see them, which apparently is what you would have liked." Pull your head in.
And Yonkers I have no problem with the Pratts putting on shows, regardless of the maths. It's the ridiculous Pratt prize result that has me mad. Dont offer it if you aren't going to award it. What if they decided not to award the Melbourne Cup to the winner because the horses hadn't run a fast enough time according to the judges?
|
|
|
|
Post by thoroughlymodern on Dec 24, 2006 11:00:48 GMT 11
Read the guidlines for the Pratt Prize. The judges reserve the right not to award the prize if they don't think any of the entries are up to commerical standard. That's what the prize is about - developing new work so that it can go on to commercial release. See also, "Sideshow Alley" (which we know is being released next year) and "Metro Street" (which is apparently also set for production in 2007/2008). This year, the judges didn't feel any of the work submitted was up to scratch, and instead of just awarding it to the best contender in an average lot, they're investing money in two of the six finalists to develop their work with the assistance of a dramaturg and an MD to give it the best chance of success as a commercial venture.
The Melbourne Cup analogy is total rubbish, and you know it.
|
|
