Convener(s):Jude Wright & Mick Martin


Rich Rost
Chloe Smith
Phil Edohs
Anna Newell

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

The theatre experience begins when you hear about a play

Whose agendas are being played out?

Are there a real range of voices being heard in the theatre due to the fact that it costs a lost of money and maybe for the not chattering classes it’s not a viable ‘career’… therefore only a narrow section of society is talking…

Has theatre got pretensions about what it is that non theatre goers don’t really get with?

Is the problem the theatre building itself – should we be taking theatre out of the building so that people who don’t think theatre is for them don’t worry about seeing / are open to the experience itself?

Politics – are we talking about politics that ‘real’ people get with e.g. the Timex dispute – interesting work went on with the people involved and really made an impact on them…

Local focussed work e.g. large non-traditional audiences for plays like Sunbeam Terrace, about a very specific geographical area / community attracted people form that place. The theatre had a different audience in and was buzzing – should we always be making theatre that creates that buzz?

What is the authentic conversation that takes place in plays like these above and can we really replicate this so that audiences relate to the subject matter without being short changed?

Stereotypes of theatre e.g. experimental theatre, put people off, is there a way of reclaiming those terms?

Or does it all come down what is marketable therefore financially viable. Real people won’t invest in something that they don’t know what they’re getting, they’ll have a big mac instead!

I think the main ideas centred around the notion of hearing authentic voices and supporting them with a skilled and high quality theatre practice to form it…