Author: Jamie Barber

The Producer: Analysis and Reflection

“The role of a theatre producer is to create or develop theatre projects. To create a project from the start, he/she has to be able to raise the money to employ all the people necessary to bring the project to fruition: a writer (if it is a new play), a director, a design team, actors, stage management, technicians, publicists, marketing personnel ((http://www.stagework.org.uk)).”

“I’d like to think that if a producer has done their job well, their involvement will go unnoticed! By that I mean that the show is good, sells well and runs smoothly. I have been credited as the producer on shows where my role has been almost exclusively administrative – i.e. looking after the money side of things and generally making sure that the practical aspects of a show tick along as they should. But I much prefer those shows where I have had a stake – or even been the lead player – in the creative process ((http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/articles/070903.htm)). “

I recently read an article by Lyn Gardner ((http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2008/apr/04/whatstheproducersrole)) that outlined an experiment the Old Vic done in which actors, directors and producers each attempted to outline what it is that the role of producer entailed. Each answer varied greatly and I think that really highlights the ambiguity of the producer role: most people are unclear and this extends at times as far as the producer. Having a vastly different range of producers whether line producers, creative producers and executive producers does not help in this ascertaining. Usually the producer is the first person that is found for a project so in some ways they’re able to define their role individually. In ascertaining the importance of the producer, their role and ascertaining where he would come in the hierarchy of theatre companies, I attempted to find examples of hierarchies to ascertain where he is placed. After investigation, I found that there is much ambiguity as to where the Producer is placed within theatrical infrastructures. As such, I will explore models in an attempt to gauge not only where the Producer is often placed but also to justify the role I took within the process of creating A Gothic Tale.

1190150202001

This hierarchy ((http://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/1190150202001.png)) places the producer underneath the artistic director. The Artistic Director is at times a producer or director; this is made exemplified by Jason Alexander of Reprise Theatre Company and Gregory Doran of the Royal Shakespeare Company. In placing a producer or director as Artistic Director, a certain consistency and overriding vision is projected on the show. While this may initially sound negative, it is at the same time positive. A vision set by an Artistic Director must be adhered to by a director and producer and this allows for a certain unity. It is also useful as a way to prevent disputes within the company should they arise in relation to the artistic vision. This is a role however that is especially effective in certain circumstances. In the event that a Theatre Company does not use the same directors and producers for a performance, the artistic director is able to ensure that they are producing a performance that the theatre company believes matches their aims and manifestos.

The role of artistic director was not used in our process, much to my discontent, because at times there were disputes over what direction to take the show or script in. Within a working environment, this would likely not be the case. However, in a student lead production, it is almost impossible to create a hierarchy that works as fluidly as a work environment. This is likely because of the level of involvement within the performance but also the lack of hierarchy already within place: having been comrades for our entire time together here, there was a sense of equality rather than one of hierarchy and at times this was problematic. I cannot help but feel that an artistic director would have been able to resolve many of the difficulties within the process. That being said, with no way of enforcing those wishes on a group, it once again falls down to a battle of wills in an attempt to win. However, with an artistic director in place, it would be a very different group dynamic. The director at times almost became the artistic director but only fell short because her wishes were often questioned. While it is debatable whether this is right or wrong, it is certain that this made the process much more laborious and arduous. It is something that would not have happened in a work environment because of the different levels of adherence to hierarchies.

The role of Artistic Director closely resembles the filmic model of Producer or Executive Producer. The filmic industry exemplifies the success that this role can create: while the director largely has creative control, in the event that a producer (or in this instance artistic director or executive producer) believe that the marketability has been compromised or the viability of the film to make a profit, they step in and insist it is changed. The Director, in most cases, is powerless against this. It is essential to note though that the producer rarely involves him or herself and only does so in extreme circumstances. The producer of a film, not dissimilar to the procedure within theatre, is the first person taken on board and they will then find somebody that is able to create the best results. As such, disputes are rare. That being said, there are exceptions to this role and usually they revolve the high profile directors of Hollywood who are granted more artistic licence than most because of their reputation and standard. However, having this power potentially reduces the risk of creative disasters or risks to the selling of a product.

 

The second model ((http://www.plymouth.edu/department/mtd/files/2010/06/heirarchy.jpg)) that perhaps encompasses all of the roles we had within our production can be found below. This model places the producer at the top of a hierarchy with ultimate control of a production. hierarchy12The production manager and director are then placed below. What is interesting about this structure is the placing of the director underneath the producer. I am inclined to disagree with this model in some ways because I feel that the director and producer should always be a team rather than individuals. While the production manager makes the technical wishes of the director come alive, the producer and director must unify their visions in order to produce a spectacular show. Petty squabbles between the director and the producer are often stereotyped and I can appreciate that it is often the case that the director wants excessive things to realise their creative vision whereas the producer has to balance the books. However, it is ineffective for these things to happen and it is my belief that a good pairing of producer and director reduces the risk of these confrontations. Within our process, the producer and director relationship was highly effective because we always knew what the other person was doing or needed to do in order to achieve results. Any potential issues were raised to the other well in advance and this enabled us to pre-empt problems that might arise. This model therefore does not represent the dynamic of Progeny Theatre Company. What is perhaps useful within this hierarchy though is the placing of almost all the other roles. The model itself is useful in demonstrating what I had imagined my job role to be within the company at the beginning of the process.   I was not able to fully articulate the job role within the viva voce and so I hope that this clarifies more what I believed my job to entail. The reality of my role within the company though was not as it would ideally have been. The producer, as discussed in this post and in previous posts, is involved in the creation of a show mainly through administration and organisation. This much was certainly true for this process; with a team of individuals I compiled budgets, monitored finance and assisted with marketing. Creative decisions were certainly left to the director in most instances which was highly effective. However, one flaw in the process was the lack of ability to have the overriding say to the people who would usually be under the producer in a hierarchy. It was unclear from the beginning of the process exactly how much we were meant to emulate a working environment and my previous experience as a film producer in the other half of my degree meant that I had a different view of a producer. This was problematic at times because I was told that I should not be doing things, such as making changes to marketing, when it was my belief that I should. Either way, I wholly respect the boundaries of roles. Further clarification was at times needed so that problems were solvable because of differing views on things. My main duties within the show were as follows:

  1. Acting in minor roles in order to assist in the creation of an atmosphere.
  2. Marketing: Assisting in the marketing campaign but also aiding in the creation of the poster to ensure that it adhered to the creative vision of the show but also to ensure that quality was met. We decided to design the poster from within rather than have an external party and as such, I think we did a good job at creating a professional poster.
  3. Finance: Myself and Francesca compiled the budget that allowed for each department to know what their spending could go up to. I then had Francesca catalogue the expenditures as and when they were approved so that we could account for any spendings and ensure that it was all on appropriate items.
  4. Copyright: Bartered and gained the licence in order to be able to adapt Angela Carter’s The Bloody Chamber. 
  5. Business Contacts: I was able to get our group discounted printing of marketing items such as posters in order to have high quality items. I was also able to get an interview on Siren FM.
  6. Profile of the show: I was interviewed on Siren FM in order to promote the show. As such, the show was then plugged repeatedly throughout the remaining time until the show and on their website in order to increase accessibility to ticket sales. I also aided in the social networking of the show in order to reach an online audience.

I realise that the producer is intended to be more assertive but at the same time, it was a condition impossible to emulate because certain conditions simply could not be met. That being said, I feel that I handled the role well and was able to assist the director in creating a show that was staged magnificently. In assisting marketing, finance and acquiring the copyright, I played an essential role in not only getting permission for the show to be created but also to help create a marketing campaign while liaising with the venue and staff members to ensure that problems were resolved as quickly as they could be making the process much easier.

Interview 1: The Role of Producer

An interview I took part in to analyse the role of Producer.

Q: What made you want to assume the role of producer?

A: Being the producer of a production is something that I had never done. I’d managed a stage school but never an actual production. I like a challenge and decided to give it a go. I like administration and I’m very much used to the film producer model and so assumed, rather naively, that is what I would be doing. They’re fairly different, as I quickly found.

 

Q: What are the main duties of the producer?

A: The producer supports the production of a show overall. They’re essentially the problem solver of the process and the person who has to ensure everything runs smoothly. They are usually in charge of the marketing and finance teams; as such, they have to ensure that the show is likely to sell, secure the funds for it to be able to do so and then head the teams that are likely to make this happen. He or she, in this case he obviously, overseas the marketing campaign and ensures that it is appropriate for the show that it is marketing and steps in when required to assist them. In some processes, they producer has the final word in creative disputes though they only step in when ultimately necessary. While this isn’t, it is something that still happens today. This is often the case in instances when a director is somebody of repute or they are also highly involved in the creative process. Some companies have placed the director as the producer also or made the producer the co-director. On the other hand, some producers are solely financially based and leave the creative elements of the show to directors. I think it depends on the dynamic that exists between the director and the producer. The producer is likely to step in at any point at which he thinks the selling of a show is being jeopardised. Relating to that, another aspect of the producer’s role is to ensure that a company work well as a team. This can be especially difficult if there is a dispute that is based solely around opinion because it is then their job to resolve this and often this can be difficult.

 

Q: What are the challenges of being a producer?

A: I think the obvious one is the vast amount of time that the producer needs to have. The workload of a producer can be high and that means that he/she has to be able to shuffle tasks, prioritise them and shift between them as and when it is needed. In this case, it required constantly knowing how much money was spent within the budget and how much remained for each department while attending all rehearsals, organising the marketing team and ensuring that they are remaining focussed, organising the compiling of any documents that need to be compiled and regularly meeting with the director.

In addition to that, perhaps one of the most difficult challenges within a process is the lack of knowledge concerning the producer. It seems to be the case that most people are unsure what the producer does while at the same time expecting them to have the answers to any question or be able to resolve any solution. There is obviously a meticulously planned infrastructure within the theatre industry and as such, people not adhering to this can cause big problems. It is the producer’s job to resolve anybody stepping outside the infrastructure and restoring that order.

In the event that somebody isn’t adhering to the requests of the person above them in a meticulously planned infrastructure, it is the producer’s job to resolve this. I’ve noticed that people can take this personally and in some ways quite rightly so because they’re obviously not adhering as they don’t agree with that choice for a reason. That’s often irrelevant though and I think they hope the producer can solve the situation though often it this won’t happen because the decision was made for a reason in the first place. It’s a difficult equilibrium to maintain between keeping balance and becoming too involved. I think it all depends on what role the producer takes as in whether he is merely financial, a creative producer or more of an artistic director as producer.

 

Q: What is your favourite element of the producer role?

A: I think my favourite element within the producer role is being at the forefront of the company, representing it and helping build a performance from the ground up. There is something immensely satisfying about this but at the same time demanding. It’s the challenge of a situation and the reaping of the rewards when that challenge is completed that makes it a desirable role.

 

Q: How has this process been different to your previous experience?

A: As I said earlier, I’m very much used to the filmic model of the producer and so expected something very different. In many filmic models, the producer has ultimate control of a film. While he or she wouldn’t involve him or herself and assume the role of the director, if they felt strongly about something and believed that it would affect the show’s financial viability and success then they would initiate a change to adhere to that. Ultimately this means that the producer in some ways has to be as attuned to the concept as the director because if not, he or she simply won’t be making good choices and this could jeopardise a film. While this can appear problematic and adverse to creativity of the director, it also holds the potential to be a solution for many problems that can arise.

Coming into an environment where the producer has a very different role immediately creates a problem and it became an entirely new role to learn. It was immensely frustrating because at times there were things that I know I wouldn’t have done and things where I knew I would and I couldn’t really affect them. I was lucky in that I and the director were on the same page. In the event that I had not been, there would likely have been more obstacles. At times there were disputes between the cast and crew and this became strenuous because at times situations needed some way of making a decision. While ultimately creative control is down to the director, what happens when the director can’t make a decision or is unable to?

 

Q: To what extent do you think it’s fair to say that experience as an actor is essential to the role of producer?

A: I think in most instances it’s essential. I’m a firm believer that somebody who hasn’t acted or performed within a production is likely to be solely obsessed with the financial side of a production. While of course the producer has to be involved in finance, they also have to think of their company as a whole and how best to work with them. Having been the actor, it allows for a certain amount of practical thinking when it comes to problem solving or organisation of schedules to adhere to this. It also allows for a certain amount of realistic thinking when it comes to what’s possible and what isn’t in relation to production, marketability and artistic vision. This would then be taken into account from the moment the project is born to its fruition and completion towards the end of the process. I think it also applies to having worked in various other forms of technical production whether lighting, sound and so on; a working knowledge for the producer can be invaluable because it then allows them to fully grasp what is being talked about and suggested.

 

Q: What is your typical day as the producer?

A: Well, my days tend to be split in two because of outside responsibilities to the theatre company. It tended to be a rehearsal in one half of the day with the other then being a time for administration. I made an effort to attend most rehearsals unless something else came up that demanded I attend. That would be followed usually by a chat with my director afterwards about how the rehearsals went followed by planning of the next rehearsals or anything else that had arisen. When that was finished, a check on the various methods of audience participation, usually social networking, to evaluate what was happening on them followed by email sending to various contacts (in relation to the licensing, finance or marketing). There would be meetings with production teams, scriptwriters, finance and marketing but these weren’t daily. Usually any queries I had were answerable over email, the phone or in person at a rehearsal.