Are co-productions the way forward?
- Convenor:
- Sarah Thom
- Attendees:
- Thomas Wildish, Louisa Davies, John (Drum Theatre), Neesha (Rep)
- Description:
- Discussion involved both venue/ company point of view, venue/venue point of view and company to company point of view, and a mixture of these and looked at both a creative point of view and a production point of view.
- Are reasons practical, creative or political – or all 3.
Company/Venue – benefits/issues discussed.- Eg. Kneehigh Model (Rep) – benefits to venue, buying in a very distinctive style of work. Financial benefits, sharing of costs. Allows a show to have a life beyond 3 weeks, - venue has a presence on the road, as well as bringing resources to a company that otherwise would not have access to them.
- Benefits of a non-building based company to have a venue to tech, bounce off, promote, share production.
- Benefits of non-producing house having work made in building.
- Practical benefits of producing house/ company relationship,- eg. Set build, marketing.
- The importance of crediting and acknowledging the co-production.
- How much money does a venue have to provide. Issues raised that venues are required by some funders to more cash in than is feasible/affordable. The acknowledgement and benefits of support in kind, venue infrastructure
- A mutual benefit. Two way. To be developed and encouraged.
- Venue as sounding board, not creative controller.
- Criteria from venue perspective – history, knowledge of company, creative respect. Need for an open dialogue.
Venue to Venue- Exchange of work. Eg. Christmas show – Rep/WYP. Doubling of output, mutual exchange and benefit.
Company to company- Challenge of marrying creative processes/ approaches
- Confidence in identity of company/ - “you need a strong identity to mingle”
- Benefits and challenge of combining creative processes
- Clarity of roles
- Option for non building based companies to co-produce.
- Financial benefits.
- Ownership – equal billing