Minutes: 10th December 2012

Minutes of STaG Board Meeting, 10th December 2012

The STaG Room, 62 Oakfield Avenue, 5:40pm

In attendance were H. Allan, A. Cameron, A. Ciupka, N. Donald, W. Foote, M. Godden, S. Linsley, A. McCallum, Sophie McCormack-Gow, A. Rutherford

Apologies from  Jack Cameron, C. Goldstone, D. Hahn, R. Tildesley, Z. Williams

Also present was Harriet Bolwell (director of History Boys)

Agenda

1. MS1 Post-Mortem
2. NW
3. FS - Inver
4. MS2
5. Inter-Uni
6. NSDF
7. LGBT
8. PerfA
9. Socials
10. Board Trip
11. AOB

1.  MainStage 1 Post-Mortem

1. Positives:
   • Fun, loved every minute
   • A really good cast who were also committed and organised
   • Production Week was great, so many people helping out
   • Lighting was very good and the Tech team was always ‘on it’
   • Board supportive and helpful
2. Negatives: 
• Booking rooms - in future it may be better to set up a rehearsal schedule between the cast and director, and book it all beforehand
• A warmer venue than SWG3 would have been nice - even a couple of heaters would have helped!  Mixed reviews about the temperature
• One cast member was threatened for not attending rehearsals enough - the rehearsals policy worked though
3. Advice: 
• Be super organised
• Get a good SM who knows what he/she’s doing
4. L. Gasson has already approached H. Bolwell in anticipation of the next MS, but it is worth forwarding the email address of the previous MS director to the next to pass on advice and ideas.
5. SM - enjoyed it, it was a good learning experience.  Communication with the venue and the panic about finding a venue were the only problems, and cast attendance.
6. SN booking issue about poor turn-out was not so much of a problem here, partly because it seemed better plugged on the day.
7. Tech team members on the Board - especially for a MS, the President being involved should be avoided, and also especially in 3rd Year as uni work on top of STaG proved rather difficult.  S. Gow expressed how useful an experience being both backstage and on the Board was, seeing the different sides of production at once.
8. H. Bolwell was congratulated on such a high-quality, successful show.
   *H. Bolwell left the meeting.
9. Job roles were pushed to the limit - the Board is effectively the Producer, therefore the roles set out in the Board structure can be made the most of.  Tech, publicity and venues, for example, should be the responsibility of those dedicated to these elements; in future a meeting with the Director at the start of the season would be useful to explain exactly what support is where from the Board, perhaps especially if the director is new to STaG.  We should arrange a meeting with L. Gasson as soon as possible to underline the Board roles [ACTION: Aidan].
10. Audience - the play's length, the temperature and the uncomfortable seating really required more than one break in the middle.
11. Chairs - a different number were found in the venue and we took all the chairs from the STaG Room, which resulted in more than 100, so it was agreed we may as well use them.  However effectively this went behind the Board (see next point).
12. Overall it seems the Board needs a more authoritative presence, more of a system and some form of protocol, to define its role.  Essentially there are good reasons behind Board decisions and it is most useful if functioning as a cohesive support which takes care of the various aspects of productions in order for the director to concentrate on their main concerns.
13. The Board Rep role in the past was more as a producer; as the BR has to sit on the Board as well as go to rehearsals, and he/she may not know as much about publicity or venues eg. as the relevant Board members, however, it was decided to treat the Board itself foremost as the producer, then the BR being the director's focal point and there to relate the director's views.
14. Instead of a Post-Mortem at the end only, the director should come to a few meetings during the rehearsal process, once a month or after important stages.  
15. The last few points are only really relevant for the large-scale MS works.

2.  New Works

1. C. Goldstone is absent, however it was announced that another judge has been secured - Gary McNair.
2. Proposals shall come in over Christmas; there is a blurb to share on Facebook and for the newsletter.
3. M. Godden would like the artwork to forward to The S.P.A.C.E. [ACTION: Sinead].

3.  Found Spaces - The Investigation (Inver)

1. Production Meeting - arranged.
2. Venue - visit this week.
3. Script - ideas have been organised.

4.  MS2

1. BR - S. Gow.
2. Production Meeting - after Christmas.
3. The director's contact details shall be emailed round [ACTION: Aidan].

5.  Inter-Uni
The submission shall be sent tonight.

6.  NSDF

1. Venue - the Debates Chamber looks promising [ACTION: Mabs].
2. Application - to be sent [ACTION: Aidan].

7.  LGBT History Week

1. Application - sent on Friday.
2. Response - 17th December.

8.  Socials

1. January Social trailer to be filmed in Northumbria.
2. It would be nice to have more theatre visits next semester.

9.  Venue

1. A STaG Room clean-up must take place this week, after Tuesday.  Make a Doodle [ACTION: Nogs].
2. Inver - Old Hairdressers would be suitable.  Passed by R. Tildesley regarding finance.
3. L. Gasson likes the look of The Tron for MS2.
4. A. Cameron is to check that the STaG Room is all tidy after the trip [ACTION: Amy].

10.  Trip

1. Everyone is to bring food and wine.
2. Some are coming the second or third nights - meal teams should be worked out.  The numbers should add up to 13.
3. Alcohol - BYOB, although there is a pub next-door.  S. Linsley shall forward the address, and all are reminded to bring cash as there are no cash machines in the area.
4. S. Linsley shall book taxis.
   *A. Ciupka entered.
5. Board games and DVDs would be appreciated, and A. Rutherford will try to get his hands on a projector.
6. There are 10 beds, but sleeping bags would be great.

11.  AOB

1. M. Godden is to send the Inver blurb on [ACTION: Mabs].
2. H. Allan gave A. Rutherford some money to forward to R. Tildesley [ACTION: Aidan].
3. The first newsletter next year shall be sent during the week before term starts, before the NW deadline if possible.  The Social video is to be embedded in the newsletter [ACTION: Harriet].
4. The Board was reminded to write any notes or advice for posterity if the mood takes them over Christmas.

The date of the first meeting of next semester is Monday 7th January, 5:30pm in the STaG Room.

Meeting adjourned and Merry Christmas!

Minutes: 3rd December 2012

Minutes of STaG Board Meeting, 3rd December 2012

The STaG Room, 62 Oakfield Avenue, 5:30-7:15pm

In attendance were H. Allan, A. Cameron, Jack Cameron, A. Ciupka, N. Donald, W. Foote, C. Goldstone, D. Hahn, S. Linsley, A. McCallum, Sophie McCormack-Gow, A. Rutherford, R. Tildesley, Z. Williams

Apologies from M. Godden

Also present were Leonie Rae Gasson, Connor Macgregor and Naomi Harrison (proposing for the next MainStage).

Agenda

1. MS2 Proposals
2. SN Post-Mortem
3. Studio Slot
4. NW
5. Improv
6. Inter-Uni
7. NSDF
8. LGBT
9. PerfA
10. Socials
11. Board Trip
12. AOB

1.  MainStage 2 Proposals

1.  'The Taming of the Shrew'

L. Gasson explained the story and her intention to juxtapose the comic role of Kate with highlighting the ultimate tragedy in the play.  To also demonstrate the constructed nature of the society, the set would be a box depicting the ‘on-stage’ world, around which could be seen the off-stage constructed world.  Here the characters' "essences" could also be seen, with several Kates representing her collected personality, for example one being male in order to highlight that side of her.  As Petruccio kills these sides of her in 'taming', however, they literally die offstage until there is finally only a frail, weak woman left.

• How would you ensure that the audience understood the concept?
  Costumes would be obvious and tokenist.  The interaction between figures would also make it clear, with all the Kates being tactile in one corner together.  
• Timeless era?  
  Ideally it would remain in the original era (to avoid adding more complications to the production) but it would not be ornate, instead bold and clear: for example, opulence would be signified by gold paint.  The language itself might conflict with any ‘setting’.
• Your inspiration?
  L. Gasson saw a production done as tragedy and remained very prominent in her mind.  She also studied the themes for which the play is a perfect medium.  Being Shakespeare, the rights would also not incur any expense.
• Next semester very busy and putting on a show is pretty time-consuming… do you have enough time for both?
  S. Linsley pointed out that last year when one MS2 director was also involved in the same course project, it all worked out fine as rehearsals could be organised in groups. 
• Experience?
  Last year L. Gasson was involved in many events all at once, which holds her in good stead, and she was very enthusiastic overall.
• What kind of directing process would you run?  
  Collaborative process mainly.  The aim would be a tight-knit group where cast and crew are only called in when necessary.  She has already applied for a course at the RCS on Shakespeare and has worked on his plays before; she would start with table-work to fully get into the text before any stage work, and would incorporate exercises and games.  Preparations would start as soon as possible.
• Venue? 
  None particularly in mind, but ideally the stage would be end-on to demonstrate to the audience how constructed their society is.  Therefore it shouldn't be beautifully rigged, but as exposed as possible.  In the past she has even searched for venues by walking and knocking on doors.
• Directing experience? 
  L. Gasson trained with Stone Crabs Theatre in London during her gap year on a directors’ course resulting in a professional production, and otherwise has been involved in this area for the last five to six years.  Her last production was Mexican realism in a listed building, which incorporated food and smell, so should it prove useful has experience of serving 300 hot chocolates to the audience while a scene continues.

2.  Arabian Nights

C. Macgregor proposed this story which has been around for centuries, involving a girl about to be executed who tells a thousand stories including Aladdin, for example.  The production would be light-hearted, not something heavy, dark and grim, and the preferred adaptation would be by Dominic Cooke, as it would be good to do something that is already established.  One of the play's advantages is the opportunity to portray various themes and genres which can be done very differently, and appeal to a range of target audiences.

• Experience?
  Not yet of directing, but C. Macgregor has been involved in a local theatre group, for example in a production of 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum', and has experience of prop-making and costume.  Has been working backstage for about a year and has seen others direct and how the process works.  He has also studied Film/TV in college, which obviously contains some similarities.  
• How would you control the large cast?  
  The different stories would have different rehearsal periods, and schedules would be sensitive to the time management of the cast and crew.  
• How many stories?
  Three; not too many but not too long (each 20-30 minutes).  
• Producer? 
  This would be helpful to assist the director more in what is happening in rehearsals and planning.

3.  Guards! Guards! 

J. Cameron and N. Harrison came in to describe Terry Pratchett's novel.  The most extravagant issue would be the costumes (helmets, breastplates, orang-utan) as the exuberant, mental characters are all well-illustrated by their apparel.  However the play involves all deep characters and is a heart-warming narrative.

• Fun?
  It is a very funny, good play, similar to HB in being comic but also very socially critical and deep with an engaging story.  J. Cameron is a huge Pratchett fan, and 'Guards! Guards!' seems to be one of his best.  
• Length?
  2 hours long.  
• Extreme characterisation?They are 'out-there', with clear traits.  Stereotypes are exaggerated completely for satirical comment; for example, certain characters could be described as stupid policemen, however they are not 2D but do develop.
• Venue?
  2 levels would work well and a large stage would be useful.  A more simplistic realisation works very well, as the story involves a huge variety of places.
• 2 directors - why together? 
  N. Harrison felt that co-directing NTN with W. Foote worked very well and would like to do it again.  You can bounce ideas off each other and J. Cameron knows the book inside-out and has seen it performed.  

After some discussion an initial vote brought the choice down to two.  'The Taming of the Shrew' would follow on well from HB, it incorporates the interesting topic of gender issues, and the director seems to e very knowledgeable on her work.  However it seems like a more serious production, and perhaps the Pratchett play would be more fun.  There was also the question of whether we should give opportunities to those who wouldn’t necessarily get them elsewhere.  It was pointed out that in a production of a Pratchett play in past experience, the audience numbers were split, and the rights would also be relatively expensive. 

A vote secured 'The Taming of the Shrew' as MS2.  Another advantage of the first proposal is the large cast of both genders, and it is worth keeping the occurrence of Shakespeare plays relatively regular.  Everything seems very thought-through and cast bonding was mentioned in the proposal, although of course the Board can contribute socials and keep an eye on dynamics for a production.  Concerns however from past experience were that Semester 2 has suffered from a lack of auditionees, rehearsal spaces and sad to say quite as much passionate prioritisation from the Board; hopefully with a fun, well-known production and a strong director, these issues will not arise.

For venues, the Board liked the idea of the Tron; this shall be researched.

Feedback: A. Cameron for L. Gasson, W. Foote for J. Cameron and N. Harrison, N. Donald for C. Macgregor [ACTION].  Z. Williams is to write a blurb for the newsletter regarding SMs [ACTION: Zoë], and this production should be announced [ACTION: Harriet].

2.  STaG Nights Post-Mortem

1. Overall it was really good:
   • Lots of time
   • There was a lot of progress over the summer in The Arches
   • The Board was useful and supportive in terms of both setting up and the actual festival, with people coming in to help off their own bats
   • The nights were a sell-out and there were no issues with people pulling out
   • Finally the shows themselves were good
2. To be improved - 
• A bigger van was needed 
• We didn’t know until 2 weeks beforehand that we could not have the chairs
• There were some difficulties with the Old Hairdresser’s, as we booked the Techs and Dresses and the chairs but in the end these did not happen
• The venue was very hot, and the acoustics (pipes) were not ideal, and 2 days were also lost along with the chairs.  However the venue was really useful during Production Week (any issues were more bad circumstance in the run-up) and the venue worked well for the theme: SN is not just about plays but also the atmosphere, which was suitably gritty (to which the pipes contributed).  However it would have been good to know about it beforehand to pre-warn directors.
3. Bookings - a problem has arisen that shows are selling out but then audiences do not turn up.  In future we should sell 80% online and guarantee 20% on the door.  Research last year on online payment suggests that this does not work in our favour and our site is not secure enough; A. Rutherford will investigate [ACTION: Aidan].  However perhaps we should encourage people to come to the shows in person more than book online, although this is a gauge of publicity with more momentum and hype possible.
4. Reminders - A. Rutherford sent email reminders before the show, which seemed to work really well and encouraged a prompt audience.  
5. Fundraising - went fine, although parties about death maybe not recommended in future, especially around Hallowe’en.  The Flying Duck event was more of a success perhaps due to the theme or coursework deadlines.  
6. Finance - roughly £530 profit.  A. Cameron was congratulated for a brilliant festival.

3.  Studio Slot

1. Poster designed - 4 simple words.
2. Production Meeting - on Friday (tbc).  
3. Venue - A. Cameron, M. Godden and S. Gow are to search [ACTION: Amy, Mabs & Sophie].  M. Godden is contacting The Old Hairdresser's as a venue; A. Rutherford and previous SN have performed plays there [ACTION: Mabs].

4.  New Works

1. Judges - K. Hurley and L. Lochhead will reply in due course.  It was mentioned that from past experience perhaps we should be wary of the bigger names, as sometimes the consequent standards, conditions and demands may be particularly challenging.  
2. The newsletter blurb is already out, and the last Writing Group is this week.
3. Any ideas for judges are still welcome - A. Cameron is working with someone who is doing a Screenwriting course next semester and will forward details [ACTION: Amy].

5.  Improv

1. Performance - went very well with a relatively good turn-out, some of whom were QM regulars and not necessarily there for STaG and who happily did stick around.
2. Next semester - the restructured planning committee after T. Pennock and E. Igelström disembark is to be A. Ahlinder, C. MacAskill, M. Reeves and R. Tildesley.

6.  Inter-Uni

1. All SN directors emailed expressed interest ('Hatty', 'Sk[in]' and 'Untitled').  The deadline is next week.
2. Dates - performance 11th March [EVENT: Inter-Uni].
3. A vote secured Sk[in] as the submitted play after some discussion: it is fluid, long enough and well-formed already, not too time-consuming to prepare, the lack of set is good for the road, only two actors are needed and they do not need to even rehearse together.  However, J. May (writer/director) is away in early February, but in light of the above this shouldn't be too problematic.

7.  NSDF

1. This is a much bigger deal: more expensive and a world stage.  
2. HB - H. Bolwell expressed interest.  However it was eventually decided that as strong as it is, HB just was not viable: issues include cast availability, the logistics of this size of cast (in Scarborough), it is a very obvious play, the cost of licensing, the time needs cutting down, as a huge hub of creative writing we really should take something we have written, but fundamentally it costs almost £100 to apply on top of a subscription ticket for all cast/crew.  Therefore sadly HB has very successfully perhaps run its course.
3. Duration - must be over 20 mins long.  
4. 'Untitled' - no set, really impressive and experimental.  We could re-stage it (possibly in Gilmorehill).  The standard must be very high; 'Untitled' was great for SN, but in terms of physical clowning in theatre it is probably not strong and this would need to be worked on.  But out of the options, it is the most suited to NSDF and of the highest standard, and also holds more scope for development.  Unanimous vote.
5. D. di Rollo and D. Green would have to go to clowning workshops - perhaps someone else could get involved?  J. Maitland could do a workshop.  A seminar tutor of S. Gow is doing her PhD on clowning and has been to Philippe Gaulier workshops [ACTION: Sophie].
6. Dates - NSDF is after Inter-Uni, from the 23-29^th March [EVENT: NSDF] with a representative coming to watch the show on the 15^th February [EVENT: NSDF scoop] at the latest (more at http://www.ideastap.com/Opportunities/Brief/edf86219-e833-422a-92d3-a0a900e8c1d3#Overview).

8.  LGBT History Week

1. Provides funds of up to £1000 for a single-night event based on LGBT themes.  J. May has suggested a mini SN ending in a clubnight, and is happy to be a second-in-command (as he is away at the start of February); further helped by A. Cameron and A. Rutherford.  
2. There will have to be proposals, the process as for any other event.  We could also collaborate with Polaris, the LGBT Society and the SRC.  Voted to go ahead.  
3. S. Linsley, A. Cameron and R. Tildesley are to have a short meeting tonight.

9.  Performing Arts

1. This was an idea to take place of the Writing Group, but now that CommA (Community Arts) is underway and A. Cameron is involved in the LGBT event and Board Repping, this shall not now go ahead.

10.  Socials

1. Panto - no longer planned.  
2. Subcrawl - 18^th January [EVENT].  W. Foote is to work on a trailer.

11.  Board Trip

1. The cheque is almost sent, and it appears that we are getting the train (3pm recommended).  On Tuesday morning we can leave whenever we please.

12.  AOB

1. Christmas - no nuts!  N. Donald is to put the list on Facebook to iron out the culinary arrangements [ACTION: Nogs].  All should chip in to buy the turkey [ACTION: All].  D. Hahn reminded the Board that she does not however have a huge oven, and she shall forward the address [ACTION: Debs].
2. Receipts refunded for HB set.

The date of the final meeting of this semester is Monday 10th December, 5:30pm in the STaG Room.

Meeting adjourned.