In a year when the Olympics may well be emptying theatres, the Critics’ Circle’s theatre section yesterday joined forces once again for our annual celebration of the shows that actually filled them — and our columns — last year with champion performances that yet again prove the undoubted excellence of our vibrant theatrical culture.
I hosted the Critics’ Circle Theatre Awards, generously sponsored by Nyman Libson Paul, in my role as chairman of the Critics’ Circle, so I have to declare more than a passing interest in them, of course. But just as everyone’s now a critic thanks to the internet, so award ceremonies that lets the entire world vote for them has increased exponentially; by contrast, these are awards that actually mean something because they’re voted by critics whose job it really is to pass judgement on what they’ve seen.
In a strikingly youthful list of winners, we have several of the big stars of the future who are undoubtedly making waves already, like Benedict Cumberbatch, Eddie Redmayne and Sheridan Smith, all of whom began their careers on the stage and even as they have moved into film and TV still like to return to it. The National Theatre, too, once again proved ground-breaking, winning the awards for both Best Play and Best Musical, while the Bush and Finborough, both in west London, demonstrated their key role in nurturing new talent.
There are only winners in the Critics’ Circle Awards; we do not engage in the protracted, competitive rounds of longlists, shortlists and nominations that set productions and actors against each other. These awards are voted independently from a secret ballot of the entire membership of the drama section of the Critics’ Circle, not as a result of the kind of discussions and horse-trading that mark out other ceremonies, so we only announce an overall winner in each category.
But as I’m in receipt of the voting forms, which are independently validated to draw the winners out of, I can share some of those who were named in each category.
The best new play award was won by Richard Bean’s One Man Two Guvnors, but votes were also variously cast for another Bean play, The Heretic, Mike Bartlett’s 13, Neil LaBute’s Reasons to Be Pretty, Gillian Slovo’s The Riots, The Kitchen Sink by Tom Wells, Tiger Country by Nina Raine, Philip Ridley’s Tender Napalm, Dawn King’s Foxfinder, John Donnelly’s The Knowledge, Wastwater by Simon Stephens, David Eldridge’s The Knot of the Heart, The Acid Test by Anya Reiss, Jumpy by April de Angelis, debbie tucker green’s Truth and Reconciliation, Tim Price’s Salt Root and Roe, Gina Gionfriddo’s Becky Shaw, Nick Dear’s Frankenstein, David Lodge’s Secret Thoughts, and Roadkill by Steph Smith.
The Peter Hepple Award for Best Musical (new or revival, and named in honour of the late, long-serving editor of The Stage) was won by Alecky Blythe and Adam Cork for London Road, but also named were the revivals of Sweeney Todd at Chichester Festival Theatre, The Beggar’s Opera and Crazy for You (both at the Open Air Theatre, Regent’s Park), fringe productions of Ragtime at the Landor and Parade at Southwark Playhouse, and the new West End musicals Backbeat, Ghost, Shrek and Betty Blue Eyes.
Benedict Cumberbatch won the award for Best Actor for his performances in the title role and the Creature in Frankenstein; also named were his Frankenstein co-star Jonny Lee Miller, James Corden, Tom Edden, Douglas Hodge, Adam James, Charles Edwards, Michael Sheen, Dominic West, Rupert Everett, Trevor Fox, Simon Russell Beale, Ben Miles, Harry Hadden-Paton, Jude Law, Tobias Menzies, James Earl Jones, Andrew Scott, Tim Piggott-Smith, Ben Daniels, Jack Gordon, Con O’Neill and Kevin Spacey.
Sheridan Smith won the award for Best Actress for her performance in Flare Path at the Theatre Royal, Haymarket; also named were Ruth Wilson, Kristin Scott Thomas, Mercy Ojelade, Samantha Spiro, Sian Brooke, Lesley Manville, Juliet Stevenson, Rosie Wyatt, Jessica Raine, Tamsin Greig, Anna Calder-Marshall, Romola Garai, Anne-Marie Duff, Lisa Dillon, Felicity Jones, Sandy McDade, Cush Jumbo and Margot Leicester.
The John and Wendy Trewin Award for Best Shakespearean Performance went to Eddie Redmayne, currently finishing a run in Richard II at the Donmar Warehouse. Others who got mentions were Charles Edwards, Susannah Fielding, Vinette Robinson, Lucy Briggs-Owen, Richard Clothier, Eve Best, Lars Eidinger, Michael Sheen, David Tennant, Kevin Spacey and Lenny Henry.
Mike Leigh won the award for Best Director for his production of his own play Grief at the National. Others named were Rob Ashford, Dominic Cooke, Michael Grandage, Danny Boyle, Patrice Chereau, Trevor Nunn, Nicholas Hytner, Rufus Norris, Nina Raine, Michael Attenborough, Declan Donnellan, Jonathan Kent, Tamara Harvey, Katie Mitchell, David Thacker and Sam Mendes.
Mark Tildesley was named Best Designer for his work on Frankenstein at the National. Others mentioned were Paul Wills, Lizzie Clachan, Borkur Jonsson, Adam Cork, Bob Crowley, Jon Bausor, Giles Cadle and Dan Jones, Miriam Buther, Oliver Townsend, Paul Brown, Rae Smith, Ben Stone, Vicki Mortimer, Alison Chitty, Rob Howell, Bunny Christie, Soutra Gilmour, Christopher Oram and Andrew D Edwards, Tom Scutt, Judith Croft and Scott Pask.
Tom Wells was named most promising playwright for The Kitchen Sink, seen at the Bush. Also mentioned were Dawn King, Rachel De-Iahay, Vivienne Franzmann, Penelope Skinner, Morgan Lloyd Malcolm, Tim Price, Pasanna Puwanarajah and Sarah McDonald Hughes.
Finally, the Jack Tinker Award for Most Promising Newcomer (other than a playwright) was presented to director Blanche McIntyre for her productions of Accolade and Foxfinder, both seen at the Finborough. Others mentioned were actors Lucy Briggs-Owen, Kyle Soller, Phoebe Fox, Tom Rosenthal, Joseph Drake, Tom Byam Shaw, Alex Lawther, Robert Sheehan, Johnny Flynn, Ruby Benthall, Vinette Robinson, Joshua Mcguire, Audrey Brisson, Ryan Sampson and Matthew Tennyson, and directors Andrew Keates, Michael Strassen and the 1927 company.
"while the Bush and Finborough, both in west London, demonstrated their key role in nurturing new talent."
Errr, the Finborough don't seem to pay actors the National Minimum Wage. Foxfinder whom you celebrated certainly didn't Pay Celia Imrie
11.45 in. Celia Imrie reveals on the One Show "I've just done a play at the Finborough for absolutely nothing" . http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b017clrb/ (go to 11.45 on the counter).
How can you nurture if you constantly exclude people because they cant afford to work for you? How is that inclusive, equal or just? http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/files/work-placements-in-the-arts-and-cultural-sector.pdf/view
No Mr Shenton, until you start realising that the Fringe needs to wake itself up and develop a better business model then I'm afraid you are not celebrating quality, but promoting bad practice and embedding it for yet another generation.
typo
Errr, the Finborough don't seem to pay actors the National Minimum Wage. Foxfinder whom you celebrated certainly didn't. Neither was Celia Imrie paid.
11.45 in. Celia Imrie reveals on the One Show "I've just done a play at the Finborough for absolutely nothing" . http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b017clrb/ (go to 11.45 on the counter).
Mr Shenton, you need have no compunction in including the Finborough in your blog: they deserve their inclusion.
What people who complain about the lack of wages proper at this and other venues fail to realise is that a business model has no practical application when it comes to casts of quite large size at small fringe houses. The only consequence of making the venues pay a National Minimum Wage level would be to shut the places down, and I cannot see the use of that to anyone.
The only consequence of making the venues pay a National Minimum Wage level would be to shut the places down,
Why not look on the bright side, it'll produce better working standards and conditions, better commercial logic, more viable theatres and better access to jobs for those of low economic status. I'd call that sustainable.
Its not acceptable not to pay people simply because they are artists - this isn't the dark ages.
Hmmm - I wonder if Margaret Peeks one and the same with infamous CiF bore/troll actingisemployment?
The problem with this sort of rhetoric is that the only real answer is to shut down the fringe as a whole, which would be counterproductive for so many obvious reasons it's not worth pointing out. But I mean, using the ridiculously OTT example of Celia Imrie – a successful actor, hardly short of work, who donated her time to six performances of a show she clearly wanted to be involved in – just highlights the fact that actors and others get involved with these sorts of things because they consider it worth their while for reasons other than immediate remuneration.
Also blithely screaming 'immoral!' at a production like 'Foxfinder' that has presumably offered a hefty career boost for all involved just serves to obfusticate genuinely dodgy practices on the fringe that probably should be investigated further.
It could be argued that, by appearing at the Finborough, the renowned Celia Imrie was denying an opportunity to a newcomer. Or that she was drawing mass attention to a venue which showcases newcomers. The One Show is the Royle family's favourite tv programme.
Incidentally, when Nigel Pargetter fell off the roof at Lower Loxley, he first landed on Accolade at the Finborough.
The award was given to the director for her two productions, not to the venue or producer.
While its good to see some thought behind the merits of the awards, rather than the popularity contest the public vote awards generate, isn't it time these - and other awards were forced out of their London centric bolt hole and begin to reflect the wider UK theatre scene?
Perhaps it is immoral not to pay actors and technical staff.
It is definately illegal. If an employer is not paying their workers NMW they are breaking the law. Actors and stage management are always classed as workers in the law, because of the nature of the work they do.
And it is a little alarmist to talk about 'shutting down' venues like they are people being executed or something. Some of these old pub venues simply are not viable businesses and can't sustain themselves. Let them go, and encourage viable business ( Park Theate) to open. There are more theatre venues in London then there ever have been. The weaker ones will go under as businesses doPerhaps it is immoral not to pay your cast. That is debatable at length. It is definately illegal, though. If an employer is not paying their workers NMW they are breaking the law. Actors and stage management are always classed as workers in the law, because of the nature of the work they do.
And it is a little alarmist to talk about 'shutting down' venues like they are people being executed or something. Some of these old pub venues simply are not viable businesses and can't sustain themselves. Let them go, and viable business (the park) will open. There are more theatre venues in London then there ever have been. The weaker ones will go under. They should not be propped up by unwaged actors or any type of illegal activity.
So many shows charge far to little for their tickets because they fail to pay their staff.
This means that legitimate producers who follow the law have to compete with unwaged companies. That is unfair. And these companies pay full rents to venues that survive as well on the back of unpaid workers.
And the quality of the work does suffer. The actors you see on the fringe are restricted to those who can work for the most part for free. Those who have families, who have student loans cannot afford the fringe for long. They come and they go those who can work for nothing. And usually in every Fringe show there is at least one utterly rubbish actor. Sometimes an entire chorus of them.
Imagine if the producer was paying them. Imagine if the director could choose from a wider pool of actors because there was enough money to pay rent and bills for a proper actor. You can't be entirely sure, but one thinks this may just improve quality a bit. Certainly the realities of running a business legally would create better producers and managements.
Look at what is happening at the Kings Head. There is a benefit mounted to make sure that the actors there are paid at least Equity minimum- which is more than minimum wage.
Yes some theatres would close. And like old friends we would mourn their passing. A bit. It would be so sad. But they are not people.
Artists and workers are people. Sure they will work like animals, unpaid until they cannot afford it and then they will fade away. The illusion of opportunity will suck the next wave in, and unpaid opportunity will favour the privileged and connected. And the disadvanteged, no matter how talented, will disproportionately fall by the wayside. Minimum wage exists as a measure to mitigate some of this but the HMRC is only just now lurching toward the creative sector with minimum wage enforcements. Soon we will be hearing about demands for back wages, production companies fined and probably then will the little theatres apply to local businesses and councils for help getting into sufficient premises.
My question is... Why don't they start that process now? Best commercial property market in decades. And they can say that the NMW regs require them to have bigger audiences. Because they do.
So when I hear about a fringe theatre closing I tend to think to myself of the days I worked there years ago and I remember the packed seats. All 80 or 110 of them and I think to myself 'blessed release'. Then I go make money acting for responsible employers. I survived but I would have been better off legally paid, even just a little bit. I wish there had been a boycott then. It would have opened my eyes to the third world mentality applied to workers in the arts in this country. And it would not have cost me a penny. My paid work arose from paid work, not the mucking about on the fringe.
That one closes another theatre will open. And having a long history does not alone make a theatre a good thing. Hopefully something bigger and better appointed will replace it. And hopefully that new one will get subsidised instead of some poor rat infested back room theatre with poor conditions and erratic management.
I love art. I love making it. I have obligations in this world. Obligations to people. I think businesses, even theatre companies need to think more about the people. Quit complaining about how hard it will be to pay your legal obligations. If you can't manage that, you have no business managing.. They should not be propped up by unwaged actors or any type of illegal activity.
So many shows charge far to little for their tickets because they fail to pay their staff.
This means that legitimate producers who follow the law have to compete with unwaged companies. That is unfair. And these companies pay full rents to venues that survive as well on the back of unpaid workers.
And the quality of the work does suffer. The actors you see on the fringe are restricted to those who can work for the most part for free. And its usually not because they have income from other acting work. Usually it's because of their background or their access to credit. Those who have families, who have student loans cannot afford the fringe for long. They come and they go those who can work for nothing. And usually in every Fringe show there is at least one utterly rubbish actor. Sometimes an entire chorus of them.
Imagine if the producer was paying actors. Imagine if the director could choose from a wider pool of actors because there was enough money to pay rent and bills for a proper actor. You can't be entirely sure, but one thinks this may just improve quality a bit. Certainly the realities of running a business legally would create better producers and managements. And actors generally would be happy if there were fewer unpaid opportunities and more paid work.
Look at what is happening at the Kings Head. There is a benefit mounted to make sure that the actors there are paid at least Equity minimum- which is more than minimum wage.
Yes some theatres would close. And like old friends we would mourn their passing. A bit. It would be so sad. But they are not people.
Artists and workers are people. Sure they will work like animals, unpaid. But they are human and one day they will find they cannot afford it and then they will fade away. The illusion of opportunity will suck the next wave in, and unpaid opportunity will favour the privileged and connected. And the disadvanteged, no matter how talented, will disproportionately fall by the wayside.
Minimum wage exists as a measure to mitigate some of this but the HMRC is only just now lurching toward the creative sector with minimum wage enforcements. Soon we will be hearing about demands for back wages, production companies fined and probably then will the little theatres apply to local businesses and councils for help getting into sufficient premises.
My question is... Why don't they start that process now? Best commercial property market in decades. And they can say that the NMW regs require them to have bigger audiences. Because they do.
So when I hear about a fringe theatre closing I tend to think to myself of the days I worked there years ago and I remember the packed seats. All 80 or 110 of them and I think to myself 'blessed release'. Then I go make money acting for responsible employers. I survived but I would have been better off legally paid, even just a little bit. I wish there had been a boycott then. It would have opened my eyes to the third world mentality applied to workers in the arts in this country. And it would not have cost me a penny. My paid work arose from paid work, not the mucking about on the fringe.
That one closes another theatre will open. And having a long history does not alone make a theatre a good thing. Hopefully something bigger and better appointed will replace it. And hopefully that new one will get subsidised instead instead of some poor rat infested back room theatre with poor conditions and erratic management.
I love art. I love making it. I have obligations in this world. Obligations to people. I think businesses, even theatre companies need to think more about the people. Quit complaining about how hard it will be to pay your legal obligations. If you can't manage that, you have no business managing.
Well, that was coherent, Annie...
This is fascinating, all sorts of interesting questions which lots of us have wanted to ask for a while. There doesn't seem to be much to add to the conversation because people have handled it so eloquently, except to say that places like the Finborough charge a fortune to hire and then don't have to produce the shows themselves, and the producers who hire them then spend what little money is left on publicity to bring it up to the level of gloss that productions which do pay their actors can afford. It ends up with shows which are well-presented and are good, but actually cost the actors in it, and indeed with actors who are desperate to be in those shows not being able to take the work because they can't afford to do it. But then producers / spaces continue to work on the fact that actors' and directors' instincts scream out to work, and that there will always be someone prepared to do the job for less money. I think something that a lot of people are wondering is whether the critics and audiences know that the people actually making and maintaining the art won't see any of the £15+ that's been paid for a ticket, or the £6+ for the glass of wine at the theatre's bar. It does seem strange, when the King's Head can pay decent money, when the Jermyn Street can pay decent money. It's never mentioned in reviews - should it be? I really don't know. National press reviews don't mention how much an actor in a West End musical is being paid; should those same national papers mention it when an actor isn't being paid? Perhaps reviews should judge the art on its merits alone, in which case I do think there really needs to be a wider and higher profile discussion about this somewhere: about how the playing field is level when it comes to receiving and delivering the plaudits for West End and non-West End work - actors love having their work recognised, of course, and producers and theatres love nothing more than seeing those four- and five-stars come streaming in - but the playing field is absolutely not level when it comes to the people who put the slog into making those same pieces of work in the first place. I'm rambling, but I think there's a point in there somewhere.
I know a little bit about this actually as I'm shortly about to produce my first show on the fringe. It's all a bit more complicated than you make out. None of the venues you mention above always pay "decent money" - all of them swing from paying Equity minimum or more to profit share from month to month. To a large extent it depends on funding applications (which of course means choosing plays likely to get funding and usually with small casts) and the catch 22 of having to secure a venue to get funding, with no guarantee of then actually getting that funding. I don't know the solution but even on £15 a ticket or whatever it may be, I'm going to have to take a massive loss even if I sell out.
@ Charles,
you raise a very interesting point about costs. All too often this doesn't come out. Whilst critics bemoan the ticket prices in commercial theatre and publicise the profits (and losses) there seems not to be the same focus at the bottom end. Why not I ask? It does matter, especially if you are weighing them up for similar artistic awards. Food for thought eh?
@Mags
I think because we're more interested in keeping the performances genuinely accessible and also because in all honesty if we charged a ticket price that would actually give us a chance of breaking even, it would be so high that only multi-millionaires could afford it.