Dead Horses: When to Quit

For those of us who are driven to succeed - especially with our creative projects, there is always the question of when to quit. When do we know that a project clearly a bad idea and how do we know when to move on?

There are many examples of projects that failed, whose makers should have seen it coming but who didn't. And Spider-Man:Turn off the Dark was just one such example.

Failing on a Grand Scale

At first, the Broadway musical, based on the Toby Maguire films of one Marvel s most iconic superheroes, seemed destined for success. Backed by Marvel, with music by Bono, and The Edge, and directed by The Lion King's director, Julie Taymor, it seemed like a start studded line up for a sure fire hit.

But instead, Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark, proved to be one of the most expensive musicals in Broadway s history, and also arguably one of the most disastrous, costing a staggering $75 million dollars and closing with a massive loss, and many injuries to its performers. And far from earning acclaim, the whole concept was seen as a bad joke: being mocked by everyone; from the cast of Saturday Night Live; to Marvel's own Deadpool.

So how could such a juggernaut of a project, have gone so spectacularly wrong? As many critics have said, there were many ways the project was set up to fail. The warning signs were there with the previews. Having 182 previews for one show, really should have flagged up that something was very wrong with this concept.

Then there was the choice of venue. Broadway theatres can allow for some spectacular performances. For example the dancers of Blast achieved some awe inspiring choreography when my family and I went to see their show. From 16 people catching flags in the dark, to a drummer able to make a drumstick levetate and play itself, through sheer skill,  their performances were superb and world class. But as specactacular as these feats were, they were achieved on tera firma. For high wire stunts you need an arena: as the many injuries to Turn off the Dark's stunt peformers went on to prove. Pity the proposed Las Vegas one wasn't used the first time round.

And then there was the storyline. Julie Taymor may have been an award winning costume designer and director for The Lion King, but as many have said; her decision to make the character of Arachne central to the plot of Spider-Man:Turn off the Dark, totally missed the appeal of Spiderman as a character. What Spiderman is really about, is the story of a young man finding his way in a tough world. All of us can relate to that. But by changing the emphasis of the story, she lost us the emotional attachment to the plot.

And the rewrites only made things worse. Like Martin Guerre, when you have an original concept you shouldn't mess with the formula. For example, the plot to kill off the Green Goblin at the end of Act 1, and then introduce not one but six Marvel supervillians in Act 2; was a complete overkill: and did not make sense, to audiences of the Tobey Maguire films. While im sure fans of the comic books would love to see Spiderman s enemies on stage, the fact remains that a comic book is not a musical. Getting all 6 supervillians into one act proved a logistical nightmare for all involved.

In the end, not even the appeal of Spiderman himself would make audiences come back, and the musical finally closed in 2014. In many ways, the flop of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, stands as an example; that bigger is not always better; that throwing more money at a problem is not the way to fix it; and that even the experts can get it wrong sometimes.

'Dead Horses'

Such a spectacular failure begs the obvious question: why on earth, would the show s producers keep on pumping millions of dollars, into something that was clearly a bad idea? Strange though this may seem, I know why they did it. Because when we think about it, what have we been taught our whole lives, when we take on to do something? Never quit, keep pushing on, don't take no for answer: and when you start a project, you finish it. We've become so used to critics and naysayers trying to tear our projects down, that when something really is a bad idea, we don't listen to them.

As motivational guru Paul McGee explains:

"Focus can lead to you being blinkered in your approach. Determination can result in a stubbornness to change, despite what the facts are telling us. Confidence could lead to a dangerous cocktail of arrogance and complacency."

And he gives the example of the Dakota Indians' proverb: "When you're riding a dead horse, dismount."

But of course, for reasons aforementioned, we don't do this. Certainly not for projects in showbusiness. I have not worked as a full time performer, but having watched my parents put together musical productions for 30 years, I know the emotional and personal commitments involved, to keep a musical running. No doubt the producers and backers of Spiderman Turn off the Dark felt this way too. As the saying goes: the show must go on. And we all do it. I once made the same mistake, letting one failed event turn into an obsession that wrecked everything for me and many others.

The Show That Was Not

It began as an idea I had, for my old student society to have a reunion. Our society was the university's musical theatre group, and one of the most successful groups on campus. Over the 30 years of its existence, talented students from all over the university had come to perform at our Deb Hall. And from hundreds of auditionees, an intense rehearsal schedule, and a meticulous backstage operation, we made sure that the standard of our shows stayed high.

Alumni of our society went on to have amazing careers, working everywhere from the RSC to London's West End. And so, one day while looking at the Alumni fb page, the idea came to me: why not get everyone together, and do a massive joint showcase, for a reunion? With over 30 generations of Alumni and a never ending number of talented students, it seemed like a match made in heaven. People always talk about opportunities, and yet one was staring us right in the face! I was brimming with excitement. What an event it could be - we had to do this!

It took 2 years of steady lobbying, before the student committee finally agreed to a showcase. But it was worth the wait. I was ecstatic, and sent invites to everyone. We had  Facebook group set up, and auditions that I attended. 600 people were notified. Official invites were sent through our Alumni magazine, and we even had a high standing member of the BBC on the guest list. The momentum was awesome, as we waited for the big event. And then it didn't happen.

Due to a double booking of the venue, the reunion had to be cancelled. We were all devastated. All that brilliant momentum and excitement went straight into a wall. After all the years trying to follow in my producer/director parents' footsteps, this could have been my chance. But with a heavy heart, I had to accept that the reunion was not going to happen.

And that would have been the end of it. Except that every time my parents did a show, it reminded me of what might have been.  To have come so close to putting on something that could have been spectacular, kept tearing away at me. We could have made a great event! Again and again, the idea of a joint showcase between the students and Alumni haunted me; and with the same message: it can be done. It can be done.

And so every year, I went back to try it again. But as with Spider-Man's producers, I kept trying to ride a dead horse. Time and again i would be told that neither the students, nor the Alumni wanted the event to happen anymore. But I ignored such comments as naysaying, and tried again and again to lobby both the society s student committee and my fellow Alumni, without success. My desire for a joint showcase had become an obsession. And my persistence only made it worse.

By the end of this sorry saga, my friends and I had fallen out big time, and a lot of students and Alumni were disappointed, frustrated, and disillusioned. My one last attempt came as a video blog, inviting all to take part. Thinking that enough time had gone by to try again, i posted my Vlog to the society s Facebook page, to see who was interested. And then all hell broke loose. The student committee were furious that I had overstepped the mark by trying to push something that hadnt been approved. They quickly blocked me from the society s Facebook page. Some of my fellow Alumni was also very annoyed, and threatened to block me on the Alumni page as well. It was painfully clear that no one wanted the event to haplem, and my persistence in pushing for it, made people want it less and less. And so I finally gave up as the last few fragements of the project s train hit the wall. It was a painful lesson to learn, but in many ways, and in the face of the need to succeed against all odds, it could happen again.

Conclusion

So the lesson to take away from all of this is: when do we actually know when to quit? In a world where we are taught never say never, and not to take 'no' for an answer: when should we realise that our project is not going to work?

I would say the best judgment to make, would be when trusted friends start saying an idea is wrong, and give detailed accounts as to why. If their facts check out, then it's probably time to change the plan. And if it still doesn't work, then it s time to call it quits.

'Dead horses' are everywhere. Let's not ride them anytime soon.

SOURCES:

McGee, Paul: How to Succeed With People, pgs 100, 103 Capstone 2013

Parents Who Perform - Supporting Maternity and Paternity Pay in the Arts

Maternity and Paternity Leave and Pay are essential, for full time professionals who choose to start families together, and artists and creatives are no exception to this rule. Working parents who perform for a living, should have the financial support, to balance a full time job, with full time childcare, so that they are can raise a family, while pursuing a great career. But this is not as straightforward as it may seem.

Going from contract to contract, it may not be easy to guarantee contractual maternity pay, without a steady paycheck from an employer in the performing arts industry. And in our Gig Economy, this lack of lonegevity may make it hard to plan for the future.

So the question remains: how to guarantee steady maternity/paternity pay - aside from the bare minimum state paid leave that the govenment can provide, and what performers and creatives can collect from their contracts? While i dont claim to have expertise in this area, there are i believe, two possible options available to working parents who perform for a living.

The first option is through union contributions. Regardless of your current employer, your trades union is one constant source of investment from yourself and other arts professionals. So it makes sense, to use it as such.

If you perform full time and plan to start a family, i suggest petitioning your union to set up a maternity/paternity package, that you can contribute to, on a monthly, or bi-annual basis. Your union might consider talking to a big insurance company, to set one up a specialised collective savings account on your behalf.

The account would exist as a special 'pot' for you to cash in, if and when you have children. This would have to have large scale support to work, and would probably work best as a large scale collective investment, but as the larger arts unions already offer specialised insurance for performers, then they could consider this as well.

Your other option is to consider a maternity/paternity package, attatched to your pension 'pot'. While unlikely, it might just be possible that some of the big pension providers might be persuaded to offer this, as a special deal for their customers.

The savings option is the more likely of the two, as savings accounts - certainly in the uk - are tax free places, where you can put large amounts of money away for that important time in your life, when you decide to start a family.

Professionals in many other industries are supported as a matter of course, for their maternity and paternity leave. And if you perform for a living, you should have the financial support to do the same.

Wolverine Sings Again

It s great to see that 'The Greatest Showman' - the latest musical biopic, telling the life of showbiz pioneer, P.T Barnum - has been so well received by the public. Hugh Jackman and a talented ensemble, certainly deserve some of the praise for this hit movie. But there is also the question of the concept itself.

I had thought that a 21st century audience simply wouldnt accept a cast of characters who spontaneously break into musical numbers. Sure, your typical squeeky clean MGM movie in the 20th century might do it: but would an audience allow Wolverine to burst into song?

Apparently yes. The Greatest Showman has been a big hit - not just with the musical theatre audiences, but with the mainstream public too. Zac Effron for one, has shown he can be more than eye candy, with some impressive dance routines - and vocals too. His duet with Zendaya - Rewrite The Stars, is the kind of song that makes a great chart hit too. And it s heartening to see, how a modern musical adaptation of a showbiz icon, has been a hit in our 21st century digital age.

Musicals are great on a stage, because the combination of live music, dance and theatre enhances the performance: an audience being so close to the action. But what about on a screen? Could the same energy translate to a great celluloid performance? And could it be as moving to an audience as a live performance?

Digital streaming of live performances has proved a surprisingly good at drawing in audiences who cant travel to the West End, Broadway (or Moscow in the case of ballet!) to see their favourite shows.

And come to think of it, the musical format has still been a huge hit with modern audiences, with films like Burlesque and 8 Mile, using musical numbers and dance, to tell the story. Then of course, there have been onscreen musical adaptations of Chicago Sweeney Todd and Nine, to name but a few.

I suppose we are so used to seeing music videos on our phones, that telling a story through song isnt so hard for a digital viewers to sit through and enjoy.

So modern musical adaptations do seem to work for a 21st century audience. The only question is: when will we hear Wolverine sing - again?

Tim Firth is Right

Following Tim Firth's assertion in The Stage Magazine, that there should be more 'mid-scale' venues for musical theatre, I think there is a way to support this, from what was written elsewhere in The Stage.

There was an interesting article, by Phil Willmott, about the various schemes that are used to developing the next big musical project. Reading through the article, these schemes certainly do seem to offer a lot of good support. And so, the is an idea I'd like to put forward, that may allow one to help the other. My idea is this.

What if the leaders and organisers of the schemes mentioned below, came together and co-ordinated their efforts, to form a new mid-level musical theatre 'federation' of sorts, to develop - and to house - new to mid level musicals?

This may seem quite a tough challenge, but I believe that the combined resources of all musical theatre schemes, could more than fund and supply key mid-level venues around the country. After all, there are now numerous musical theatre courses being offered at universities and colleges, so the recognition for musical theatre as an industry are on the up. And this kind of collaboration, would create even more opportunities for musical theatre performers and creatives.

The schemes include:

• Stiles and Drew Prize and Mentorship
• Mercury Musical Developments and BEAM
• Book, Music and Lyrics (BMI)
• The Other Palace
• New Musical Development Collective
• Perfect Pitch
• Katy Lipson, Aria Entertainment and Page to Stage

That is my idea, and scheme leaders who are reading this: if you pool your resources, you will more than achieve your aims.

Sources: The Stage Magazine, December 7, 2017 pgs 3, 24

Fighting Harrassment - How HR Could Help Freelance Performers

A lot has been said recently in The Stage magazine, about the use of HR professionals, to help protect performers and creatives in the arts industry, against harassment. Having worked in HR roles for some years, I do agree with the commentators' suggestion. But while should be official structures and protectors in place, to guard against another Weinstein-style abuse of power; there are also practicalities that we must consider.

First of all, there is the cost and level of experience to bear in mind. From my HR experience so far, I would say that performers and creatives would need an HR Officer, -fully CIPD qualified - with a clear experience of Employee Relations, to be able to enforce protection against harassment, and ensure that respect is given to performers and creatives, as employees. (Some HR practitioners specialise in this field, but not all.) That means a hefty salary that must be paid: bearing in mind that most HR Officers are ranked above average pay scale. Larger arts organisations might employ such professionals in this way: but what about the freelance individuals, who move on a contract basis, throughout the industry?

One possible suggestion I have, would be to have regional 'Reps', employed collectively by all freelancers in the region, paying like a co-operative: as the HR Officer would need a steady wage, and if payment was spread across several hundred freelancers, this might be manageable. But this in turn, throws up another problem. To whom would a freelance-employed HR Officer be answerable? This I think, would be where the concept hits a wall.

In every organisation and HR team I have worked, there has always been a clear chain of liability. Employment law is very clear on this point. The HR staff must always have a boss, or be employed by a  recognised legal entity, as the nature of Human Resources means that there are legal issues of accountability; everything from new starters to payroll must be audited, monitored, and held accountable by the employer. That means that every HR professional can only operate within a structured organisation: they might contract out their services, but once in their contract, the same organisational structure always comes into play.

That is why I disagree with the comments made, that full time performers should have HR, as opposed to relying on their unions for protection. HR professionals work effectively within an organisation, but for freelancers, I think that the best solution would be: a specialised union rep. Think about it: who is on whose payroll? HR professionals do make sure that employers comply with the law; but when push comes to shove, I would argue that the employer is paying them to represent their side first in a dispute: certainly during any formal grievance procedures, involving cases of bullying and harrassment.

The unions, on the other hand, are paid directly by their members, to represent them, and if you as an employee are involved in a dispute, they are there to represent your side. After all, you pay them to do so! I have seen this arrangement in many of the industries I have worked for, and the same would apply to the performing arts.

That is why, freelancers should consider having a specialised union rep, who is trained in Employee Relations, and knows how to defend employees against harassment. This is what you should encourage your union to do. And for anyone who isn't yet in a union, I would advise you join one. The more members a union has, the stronger its bargaining power, to enforce rules, and fight to protect you from harassment. For arts employees at work, I think this would be the best way to ensure and enforce respect for all.

Supporting Offstage Professionals

Offstage employees are as important to the performing arts industry, as the performers on stage. And yet as one independent report has said (link below), these employees are not given the support they need for a good career.

As I suspected, the access to the arts industry is a problem, through voluntary work and unpaid internships. There needs to be a proper career path to becoming a producer, technician or other offstage professional.

To overcome most of the challenges, I think there need to be more technical apprenticeships, and open networking into the arts sector, through more groups like ours. There also needs to be more in house training, to allow people to develop within the industry.

And then there's the issue of pay. I think this can only be solved by a Living Wage for all offstage professionals industry-wide.

We need to remember, that the offstage production is as important for the arts, as performance itself.

https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2017/offstage-report-demands-urgent-skills-overhaul-exclusive-antiquated-sector/

Arts Apprenticeships

Here's an idea I've been having for a while, about how we can create more opportunities for apprenticeships in the arts for our region and for others. We have the connections and expertise in our group, to make it happen.

Looking at the apprenticeships for the artistic profession in the UK, I can see that although apprenticeships are available for similar professions, such as technicians, and events promoters; there doesn't seem to be courses available for theatre directors and producers:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/arts-media-and-publishing-apprenticeships

From what I have been told, the career paths to becoming directors and producers are not easy ones, and have not been clear cut. Even if they were, I still think we need to set up more opportunities for people in our region to train in backstage production to make it more accessible for young apprentices - and of course, the same goes for scholarships and bursaries for onstage performance as well.

Fortunately, we have exactly the right contacts within our LinkedIn group, to be able to set these kind of apprenticeships up:

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8342825/profile

Some of our members are involved with Theatre In Education and hence they understand the learning aspect of such an operation. Others have connections within universities, who could enable training programmes and schemes to be put together. And finally, some of our members own or manage the organisations, where places for apprenticeships could be offered.

If we co-ordinate our efforts, I know that we could actually find, plan and set up apprenticeship opportunities in at least a few of our members' organisations. You have the talent, expertise, and the connections. Any suggestions or ideas you have on this are certainly welcome.

Let's think about how we could co-ordinate our organisations' efforts to make this happen.

Best Regards

James M

Founder