Add a Comment

Comment by Emma MacNab on February 17, 2015 at 0:30

I see the logic of the argument for longer runs. One of the biggest things preventing this though is money. The companies who they have programmed in have received a 'chunky guarantee' meaning that they are safe to take a bold step in booking several weeks run in one space. The majority of companies who can afford longer runs do, from what I can see, reap the benefits in terms of building new audiences, improving reputation, and making suitable returns to enable them to produce further projects without relying on arts council funding. A result good for everyone! However, without the initial lump sum enabling them to book a theatre and pay a team for several weeks performances, this is beyond many companies ability. 

Comment by Catrin Fflur Huws on February 12, 2015 at 3:25

Game of two halves really. There are lots of stuff I've missed because they've only been on for one night, and usually on my busy night, so it would be good if things were on for two nights at least. I also think it's good to give artists a decent shot at something - rehearsing something for just a short run must feel like a lot of outlay for comparatively little return.

On the other hand in a regional arts centre, there's a need to get a diverse range of things because a longer show can block up the space/spaces and there's nothing else. It can be problematic if a show has already been seen by the people who want to see it, and nobody else does. The other downside is that multiple shows could split a small audience - half the people going to see it on the Wednesday say and the other half on the Thursday - at least with one show the people who want to see it will all come on the same night so there's a chance of getting a decent audience. Some of the best things I've seen have had disappointingly tiny audiences, so I wouldn't want to dilute that further.