One Act play competition
Awhile back on his blog, my friend Stix discussed the validity of doing theatre as competition. I've often thought many of the same things he said there (http://jeremiahsdad.blogspot.com/). We performed our school's one-act play today as part of our subsection competition. We came in fourth out of five plays/schools today. Given that the judging of these plays is highly subjective, I was thinking after watching all five plays before the results were announced, that we could come in anywhere from first to fourth place. First might have surprised me a bit (I figured --correctly-- what play would be in first place; I didn't really like it, mostly stylistically, but they did a good job of what they did). But second, third, or fourth would have been a toss-up any way. (I knew we wouldn't be fifth; one school was obviously in that position.) I wasn't surprised nor disappointed. The comments of the judges, which I read on the bus on the way home, reflected pretty accurately what I thought of my kids' performance.
On the plus side, I no longer have play practice to go to every night.
On the plus side, I no longer have play practice to go to every night.
posted by Kootch | 6:08 PM
4 Comments:
Aside from being rather subjective, I think that judges aren't well "trained" on the criteria for judging. In our sub-section, one school was ranked 1st, 3rd, and 5th (last) between the three judges. How does one explain that?
Part of my problem with the idea of art as competition, is also the one-shot atmosphere. One performance and you're in or out. Can you imagine the football team working for three months to play, perhaps, only one game? Maybe a scrimmage for the home crowd before hand to work out the jitters, but only one game to try to move on?
I explain it by saying it's subjective. I would disagree with the notion that the judges aren't well "trained" on the criteria, but that the criteria itself is inherently subjective. For example, one of the criteria to judge is blocking. Whenever I watch a play, I might think, "Wow, that was a cool bit of blocking" (I did a few times in your one act), but I'm more likely to think, "Hmm...I would have blocked that differently." Does that in itself make the blocking bad? I think it's just a matter of choice and style. There are certainly instances of bad (or no) blocking ("Juliet's Ghost"), but in the vast majority of cases, it's almost totally a subjective call.
I've seen the 1-3-5 ranking (or something close to it) numerous times in one act, as well as in speech -- in fact, I've been a part of it in speech more than once. Does that make me a bad speech judge or is it just that I see things differently and have different tastes and opinions than other judges. There are definite instances of things being good or bad. I knew which play was going to win our subsection and I knew which play was going to come in fifth (last) place. For the middle three, however, there was a lot of grey area. And I think that's totally a matter of subjectivity and taste. I've had judges make "suggestions" on critique sheets about how to do things differently, when I had specifically considered and rejected doing things that way because I thought they worked better "my" way. Does that make me a bad director? Again, no, just a matter of differing opinions.
So how do we, as directors, deal with that? With a huge grain of salt. Obviously, in the arts, you're never going to please everybody, so do what you think is best and please yourself. Do the kids learn something about theatre? Do they enjoy performing? To me, that's infinitely more "winning" a plaque. (And bear in mind that I say this as someone who's directed one act for seven years, and has gone on to sections four times.)
I understand your frustration at the one-shot atmosphere. But I don't think there's a viable way to change that. We're thrown into a playoff situation right away. It's too bad you didn't get a chance to perform at that invitational thing at W-K.
"Infinitely more rewarding than 'winning' a plaque," that should have said.
I agree with everything you're saying. Though I might still argue the qualifications of the judges (though to be fair, I am NOT a certified judge, so I don't know the process) -- I would think that it would be beneficial or within the "rights" of the certifying comittee, to require judges to attend Section and/or State festivals. Judges who are regularly judging only one tournament a year and do so year after year, may not see the larger picture.
That shouldn't affect how they judge a specific contest, but then again, it might -- after all, it is subjective and that subjective mind can be influenced by other factors.
Post a Comment
<< Home