HOW ARE PRODUCTIONS JUDGED?

These notes were compiled some time ago in response to requests from member companies. The current judging panel can find no reason to disagree with the broad principles they outline.

Most people could, if pressed, produce a list of the basic features that characterise excellence in each of the judging categories. They would expect, for example, that scenery and costumes would be practical as well as being attractive to the eye and appropriate to the mood and period of the production. They would also expect that winning performers would display outstanding skills in acting and characterisation as well as their singing and dancing, that first class direction would imbue the production with a distinctive and recognisable style, which will be further enhanced by the musical director’s handling of the score and the performers - and so on, and so on.

It has quite correctly been pointed out that some of our younger, less experienced companies might not find it so easy to draw up such a list. The judges feel, however, that the Guild should seek more effective means of assisting members to remedy such problems through its training and education programme, rather than attempting to publish the ultimate definition of theatrical excellence in the guise of a set of criteria for its awards programme.

There are also several major problems associated with publication of a set of criteria, not the least of which is the danger of having these criteria assume the status of de facto standards, a set of parameters within which companies will, rather than setting out to mount the very best production of which they are capable, begin to concentrate on winning awards.

This would in fact be a most undesirable state of affairs, because the framework within which productions are assessed varies enormously. Obviously, in terms of performance, for example, the relative importance assigned to singing, dancing and acting will vary considerably, depending on the type of show being mounted. Dramatic values are likely to be subordinated to the vocal and orchestral contribution in an operetta, while the choreographer’s skill and the abilities of the dancers may assume paramount importance in a more recent American musical.

Other factors necessitate a flexible approach to assessing the productions entered in the awards programme.

There are many companies associated with the Guild, with a wide range of levels of experience, varying levels of access to resources, and so on. The judges must attempt to use their own knowledge and experience to evaluate the production as staged in the light of what is possible with the resources which appear to have been available - in other words, to make allowances for the constraints under which the company appears to be working. For example, non-professional companies do not always have access to a wide range of performers when casting, and, as we all know, casting arrangements are frequently subject to all kinds of mishap. Thus, while the judges may not know that the leading man walked out a week before the opening night, they will make allowances for the fact that the person now playing the role is not perhaps entirely suitable, and evaluate the ways in which the director and cast seek to minimise the problem.

In making such allowances, the criteria by which the production is judged must be adjusted to accommodate the specific variations from the ideal associated with an individual production. In much the same way, the judges must take into consideration the impact of the venue on a production. Many of the auditoriums in which our member companies work are far from ideal, and it is obviously impossible to expect the same production values in a converted school gymnasium as in a fully equipped theatre.

Given these difficulties, how then does the judging process actually work?

There is a panel of seven judges and the aim is to have as many as possible see each production. Sometimes, of course, the combination of a large number of performances in a short space of time coupled with other demands on the judges’ time means that fewer than the full complement of judges will view a production, but this is a rare and definitely unplanned occurrence! Moreover, awards can be and have been won by productions attended by somewhat less than the full panel. Sufficed to say, the earlier judging applications are made, judges will be able to better plan their schedule and will be more likely to attend. We should perhaps take this opportunity to point out that judges will always telephone in advance to arrange for seats to be held for a particular performance, so there is no need for companies to hold seats aside in anticipation of judges making a last minute appearance.
Each judge writes a brief report of the production, and awards a mark in each of the categories to be judged. At regular intervals, individual judges review the marks allocated to date, comparing and sometimes revising scores as the number of productions viewed for the year in question grows. This process is repeated on a larger scale at several meetings of the panel held during the season, when the judges meet to compare their scores and discuss any major problems which they may have encountered in assessing the work to date. There are no formal marking systems used, each judge using his or her own method to arrive at a mark out of 100 in a particular category. Given this lack of uniformity of method, it is perhaps surprising that there has been a high degree of consistency reflected in the scores given. Obviously, major discrepancies in scores would require discussion, but to date there have been few such divergences of opinion among the members of the panel that have not been reconciled by warm debate. As every actor and backstage worker knows, different performances of the same production can develop quite different ‘vibes’!

At the end of the year, the whole process is repeated, and an entire day is spent going back through all the marks and score sheets, to identify the winners in each section. These are then discussed again, and each category examined once more, to ensure that the scores reflect the subjective overall impressions held by each judge before the decision is finalised.

It is at this point that the decision is finalised as to which production will receive the coveted accolade as ‘Production of the Year’. This is actually a case in which the whole may be greater than the sum of the parts. In addition to excellent direction, musical direction, wardrobe, scenery, and costumes, a truly outstanding production will have a unity of style and performance which transcends the individual elements to create a singular theatrical experience. Thus, selecting the production of the year involves a good deal more than the aggregation of score in individual categories.

In the final analysis, it is important to remember that, exciting though it may be to win awards, the real objectives of every company are to stage the best possible production of which they are capable, at the same time providing enjoyment for both themselves and their audiences while learning more about the fascinating world of music theatre.