Mowlem

Not sure if this will help or not, but I've resurrected the 'Mowlem metamorphosis' thread and emrged with 'Mowlem again, again' to try to keep all comments together.
(The Postman)

Posted by Mr. Paul Angel

Everyone (including me) has had a moan about the state of the Mowlem, especially the disgusting mock-victorian bars, so i decided to have a moan to Hall & Woodhouse, who share responsibility with the trustees (as far as I know). Here was their very positive reply:
"PaulGood news!There is a major internal and external upgrade planned for the Mowlem in 2007. I couldn't agree more that it is currently not doing itself justice.Thanks for your feedback.RegardsNick SellickArea Manager".
Now I think that's great, and even better if they consult local people about the new look they could go for. So I thought we could have a conversation here!My opinion: Go for a clean contemporary look with the bar that sticks out clad in oak, the signs modern and maybe backlit, the glass should be cleaned up and left as glass, the lower area where you can sit outside should have some decent benches and lighting, the interior should be white and have local art in it in a changing display, and they should reflect the modern building, the coastal location and the local art scene...What does anybody else think - BE POSITIVE!

posted by nick storer @ 5:47 PM 12 comments
12 Comments:

At 6:09 PM, nick storer said...

I believe it is very hard for an organisation to change, especially when they need to work with a board of trustees. Presumably they will keep the same demoralised management. Solution, simply put the bar and restaurant separately out to tender. Award the franchise to the best, (not necessarily the highest bidder).
Also clad the outside pillars which support the restaurant above, perhaps with the oak. Put in disabled loos. Make the tunnel area a food court cum gallery. Laminate a colour onto all the glass, I would favour metalic green. Get the cinema manager to advertise his program in the likes of the Guardian (if the REX can be bothered for goodness sake so should the Mowlem). Get rid of the chavs and hoodies that hang around outside and disrupt the films inside. The restaurant bar needs most urgent attention.

At 6:19 PM, nick storer said...

soz but two more points:
1) Sort out the website, you can't even get this weeks film details...
2) Other Towns had equally challenging theatre buildings which they can now celebrate. Think of the makeovers at the Lighthouse in Poole and the de La Warre Pavilion in Bexhill.

At 8:04 PM, The Postman said...

Would love to be positive. But the only way for fresh thinking is to get new people looking at it. Presumably the present people think what they have and do is wonderful -- so why would they change?

At 9:00 PM, Steve Darrington said...

"The man who thinks he can, and the man who thinks he can't, are both right"

To presume that the people running the Mowlem think what they do is wonderful and therefore would never consider change, is to deny them the benefit of your vision!

Why not use this site to make suggestions? I'm sure that they are read by the relevant people at the very least.

At 2:42 PM, Anonymous said...

The consensus is that they do a very good job but unfortunately its the wrong job.

At 10:18 AM, Paul Angel said...

Hall & Woodhouse have just signed a new lease on the restaurant and Bars apparantly, so there won't be a change of franchise there. The fact that I sent a rather grumpy email about the state of the place and that they replied does strike me as positive, though!
The management of the Mowlem theatre does need a kick up the bum, though... I wonder if the problem is that they make enough money to tick over from the rents and leases on shops and bars, so no real effort to attract theatre and cinema goers. They need a proper plan in place (and publicly in place) to improve the quality of the cinema and theatre experience and the nonexistant PR. At the moment it feels like a visit to a badly run village hall! My father rescued and ran the Tivoli in Wimborne for 10 years, so I speak with some experience of how things can be done well!

Don't know how you discourage the chavs - play classical music in tyhe foyers and the chav-hut outside?

At 8:53 PM, Anonymous said...

Thinking of the makeovers at Pool and Bexhill, where did the money come from? Where does the money come from that funds the work at the Mowlem and why are they not awarded huge grants like the others? Why is there no financial support from the town council for a facility as important as a theatre? When the water company offered to turn the plant compound of their building site (where the mock amphitheatre now stands) into a leisure centre, why was that blocked? Who owns the leisure centre that is conveniently located near the caravan park? And who owns the caravan park? Who decides what the money is spent on, regardless of where it comes from? How much does it cost to run a public building? What can be done to increase income, so that the suggested improvements can happen? Is there anyone who can see the value of investing in the arts so that the vital facelift can be done? Was it a mistake to knock down the Victorian building in the first place? Until the chavs are kicked into touch, no-one will want to put anything worth having in a public place. Presumably those with all the bright ideas have no clue about any of the above. Put your hand in your pocket and do something useful with it. Lobby funding bodies to support local arts. Ideas and suggestions are worthless without hard bankable cash. Nothing happens without hard bankable cash. There are some very generous people in Swanage but the kind of work that it really needs has many more noughts after it than those generous people are able to afford.

At 10:03 PM, Cheesemeister said...

I realise this could be dangereous but I am going to stick my neck out and tell you that I am the Chief Theatre Technician at the Mowlem. I absolutely love my job and it pays my bills. I do not have other jobs I can take at the drop of a hat so bear that in mind when you formulate your questions. I will not sully my name with replies to flames, belligerence or ill-considered comments. I will treat you exactly as I would if I met you in person. I don't bite (often) and if you see me in the bar be nice to me, engage me in conversation and intelligent discussion, or just tell me a decent joke. Drinks are always welcome.

I like some of your ideas and I agree with some comments. Personally, I would like to have some architectural lighting in the foyer area when that gets to the top of the list. I have some very creative ideas on how to spend lots of money. That we don't have.

To Paul Angel. You obviously have seen some great ideas from conception to fruition. I have worked at the Tivoli myself when I took a tour there; it is a fabulous theatre front of house and there have been some admirable technical improvements too. Please share your ideas! Examples of real ideas that have worked, or even failed, are worth ten times the weight of off the cuff remarks.

I agree with all the remarks about the hoodies and chavs. They are the bane of my life and even more so of the life of Brian. He's not the Messiah, he's the theatre's Administrator (we do not have a manager, but I'll save that explanation for some other time).

As regards the facelift, my personal taste in architecture does not accommodate buildings typical of the 1960's style. I might add that the internal design is also dreadful and I do not believe it was designed by someone who had ever even been to a theatre let alone tried to put on a show: a loading bay on the first floor? What on earth were they thinking? Did any of you see us doing the get-in or get-out when "Dead Easy" was on? However, a rebuild that rectifies the biggest gaffs in theatre architecture will cost millions and we have to improve what we have before anyone will see the theatre as worthy of such huge investment.

Before you give me earache about the bar or the foyer, remember that as the Chief Technician, my area of influence is mainly the technical aspects of the theatre. I can sympathise till we all end up in a big sloppy group hug but frankly my time is already overstretched with maintaining and improving the technical aspects of the theatre to a standard I would be proud of.

One of the most important lessons I learned when changing careers from IT to professional theatre was being able to work with what you've got and that imperfect punctuality is always preferred in this business to perfect lateness. There isn't a theatre technician in the world who is happy with the facilities available. At least, not one with whom I wish to be associated. Furthermore, lateness of delivery in both live and recorded entertainment is measured in minutes, seconds and fractions of a second, not months, days and hours as it is in IT.

Well that's my opener. I'll come back when time allows.

At 1:14 PM, Anonymous said...

Someone asked about funding. There is a very simple reason why the Mowlem does not get lottery or other public funding. A basic condition of public funding is that the people running the organisations it goes to must be accountable. The Mowlem trustees are not accountable and have absolutely no intention of making themselves accountable. They would rather be kings in a threadbare castle than have to stand for election. Its quite obvious they would rather let it fall into the sea then let the people of Swanage decide how our main cultural asset is run.

At 7:40 PM, Anonymous said...

Hard to be positive. We wanted to plan an evening out for a couple of families, so to be sure of getting seats we tried to book tickets, to be told 'we don't sell tickets in advance'. What sort of blinkered moronic organisation is that?! Certainly doesn't seem like one that actually wants to sell tickets and make money out of running any sort of business. And why will they sell theatre tickets in advance but not film tickets? Time for the trustees to hand over to people with half a commercial brain.

At 2:48 AM, Cheesemeister said...

We are not allowed to. We are also obliged to open the box office 45 minutes before a film. No earlier. No later. If there are two customers or more, we are obliged to show the film. If there is only one customer we are obliged to refund the customer and tell them to come back another time. There are mystery customers, though they don't all make good spies and some are recognisable. These obligations are the terms of our contract. If we break the terms of our contract, they stop supplying films and reserve the right not to supply films already arranged.
With theatre, the contact is with the production company, which is usually far less restrictive than commercial film. Why is this do you wonder? It's all about protection of revenue and branding. Throughout the entire supply chain there is far more money to be made per seat from a big multiplex with their computerised automated projectors requiring one projectionist for many films than at a small theatre that runs on two projectors of pre-war design (but post-war manufacture) requiring full-time attendance for the entire film.

At 7:42 AM, Anonymous said...

Well done Cheesemeister! For far too long the workings of the Mowlem have been shrouded in mystery. Your explanations are most welcome. Have you considered going to a meeting of Swanage's finest, STRATA? Social at the Quarr Gallery this Wednesday 16 August.

posted by The Postman @ 12:24 PM 18 comments
18 Comments:

At 12:47 PM, Anonymous said...

If attending the STRATA social pleaes remember to bring a bottle.

At 6:00 PM, Anonymous said...

STRATA?

At 11:36 PM, Cheesemeister said...

Thank you for the invitation. It sounds most intriguing and I accept.

At 5:27 PM, Cheesemeister said...

Just to revisit the funding issue. The Mowlem trustees are answerable to the Charities Commission are they not? I honestly don't know. To whom were the funds made available at other charity-run theatres? If they are an unincorporated body (I believe that's the term used) then they must have trustees whose function has some parallels with that of company directors.
If the trustees are the ones made responsible for ensuring allowances from public funds are correctly allocated (and in a charity, who else could it be), to whom are those trustees accountable. How do other charities make themselves accountable?
It doesn't help move the discussion forward to make criticisms about accountability without being clear on whom is, or should be, accountable to whom and by what mechanism.
How is this accountablility enforced? In the affairs of accountability for public funds, there probably exists a law or two. Does someone knowledgable in such matters read this blog or do the readers know someone who can set the record straight? Some real examples of other organisations would be of benefit, to show how accountibility works in the real world outside of the statute books.
Through informed discussion and debate we seek to view the world through someone else's eyes; and hence enlightenment.

At 6:16 PM, Anonymous said...

Go to www.charity-commission.gov.uk and find your way to the Mowlem's entry. You will find that its objects are defined as:

LIBRARY AND READING ROOM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INHABITANTS OF SWANAGE AND IN PARTICULAR FOR USE FOR MEETINGS, LECTURES AND CLASSES OR FOR OTHER FORMS OF RECREATION AND LEISURE TIME OCCUPATION WITH THE OBJECT OF PROVIDING FURTHER EDUCATION AND IMPROVING THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE FOR THE SAID INHABITANTS.

This is the job they do, but as has been pointed out its the wrong job when what we need is an art centre. All they have to provide is meeting room. That is all that they are responsible to the charity commission for. No more. So long as the room is available they can do as they like with the rest of the building and are not accountable to anyone.

At 7:05 PM, Anonymous said...

How many books are there in the library? Where's the reading room? And when can you use it?

At 10:38 PM, Cheesemeister said...

There is no library that I am aware of and there is no reading room named as such. The nearest I can see to a reading room would be the Community Room, which is available for booking via the box office.

To spell out the meaning that is being inferred from the information with regards to funding:
o The trustees of the Mowlem are accountable to the Charity Commission for providing a library and a reading room with emphasis on meetings and such.
o The theatre (indeed everything but the Communuity Room) is not explicitly part of the charity's objects and therefore the Charity Commission has no say in the use of those spaces.
o This being the case, no-one has legal recourse for controlling how public funds are spent on the theatre et cetera and thus public funds can not be made available for them.

Please highlight any mistakes in the above.

The use of the term "Arts Centre" is open to interpretation and the general feeling within this part of the community is that the interpretation taken lacks conviction, to put it mildly.
Provision of a theatre and cinema, perhaps even the bar, could have been covered by the rather vague phrase "or for other forms of recreation and leisure time occupation with the object of providing further education and improving the conditions of life for the said inhabitants", except that none of those spaces are explicitly named so fall outside the charity's object. I am guessing that this phrase prompted adoption of the name "arts centre". Again, the feeling here is that the object is too vague, allows interpretation that has proven impossible to rebut and could be said to be a barrier to receiving funding from public monies.
Is that latitude of interpretation really what makes funding bodies refuse funding?
My argument would be that a theatre and a cinema do fulfil that part of the object but I can see how, in noting that the "reading room" is the only space explicitly named, public bodies would argue that those other spaces do not qualify for funding.

Hmm. A knotty problem indeed.

Are charities allowed to change their object?

I'm posting this now for people to comment further. In the meantime I shall do some research to see what the Charity Commission has to say on the matter of changing a charity's objects. Unless someone else already knows and can give us a digest.

At 11:04 PM, Anonymous said...

Changing a charity's objects depends, of course, on the trustees wanting a change. One might well conclude from the fact that this has not been done, that the trustees here would rather not bother.

It is instructive to read the material of other art centres, for example Bridport and contrast them with the local situation. They do funny things like have members who elect their trustees and have a limit on how long they can serve. Suggest that to Mr Bale and see what the reaction is. Ask him why we can't all join the Mowlem and elect the trustees. Its a simple enough expectation to have for an organisation wanting public funding.

At 11:12 PM, Anonymous said...

You could also ask our district and county councillors why Bridport Art Centre receives £50,000 of local authority funding and the Mowlem gets zilch.

At 11:18 PM, Anonymous said...

The Mowlem trustees, according to the information furnished by the charity commission are:
MR P W HUNTSMAN
MR ROY SMITH
MR DAVID BALE BSC
MRS JANICE JUNE POND
MR JOHN GORDON LAZENBURY
MRS LINDA MARY BURGESS
MR PAUL BRIAN GROVER
MR ROGER WILLIAM WILCOX
MRS SUZANNE HAW
MRS GLORIA MARSH

This may not be up to date of course. There is a recent list on a notice board in the Mowlem. Perhaps some of them could tell us how they see their role in the cultural life of the town.

At 1:08 AM, Cheesemeister said...

Here's what the Charities Commission has to say on amending a governing document, within which are the charity's objects.
In summary, the power and conditions for making amendments to a governing document are set out in said document. When they are not, the charity must request permission from the Charities Commission.
How does one inspect a charity's governing document?
Charities must also consider if another charity in the vicinity already has the same objects. I recall someone else telling us, perhaps on a different post, that the Tithe Barn Museum has "arts centre" amongst their objects. I haven't seen what they do but I think it ought to be possible for the Mowlem to function as an arts centre without duplicating the efforts of the Tithe Barn. Could the duplication of "arts centre" be the main argument put forward for not changing the Mowlem's object? I think I already know some opinions on that. Is that also the majority view here?
Openness seems to be what this part of the community want, and democracy. The example of Bridport shows what openness and democracy can achieve. How does one force a change toward openness and democracy on anyone? On any group of people? Is "force" the most effective manner? Wherein lies the leverage you seek? I don't think I have answers to those questions and it is too late in the night for me to start formulating any theories.
Anonymous highlighted the success of the model used in Bridport, which also happens to appeal to my own firm belief in the democratic process. I could, as Anonymous said, "Suggest that to Mr Bale and see what the reaction is. Ask him why we can't all join the Mowlem and elect the trustees." Anonymous clearly already knows the outcome. So what will that approach achieve? Anonymous must already know the answer to that too. So why suggest that, Anonymous? Did it move us forward at all? No it did not. If this is just going to be a forum for unhelpful sneering remarks, why should I bother to take the time with you?
Let us put an end to such nonsense. I understand that David's manner may rub you up the wrong way. That is a common thread shown here. That's just life. Deal with it, put it aside, and share more of your knowledge and intellect, for they are of far greater value to the debate.

At 10:07 AM, Anonymous said...

Copies of governing documents can be obtained from the charity commission, although they may charge for this.

To the best of my knowledge the present form of organisation was devised at the time when local government reorganisation was in the air and there was a panic about assets in Swanage coming under the control of a district council whose offices were in Wareham, hence, for example the fact that Swanage car parks are owned by the town council. The architect of this piece of municipal paranoia was David Bale's father which goes some way to explaining David's "my bat, my ball" approach and the frustration this causes. Ironically of course a PDC councillor is a trustee.

At 10:09 AM, Anonymous said...

Someone said "You could also ask our district and county councillors why Bridport Art Centre receives £50,000 of local authority funding and the Mowlem gets zilch. " Presumably the Bridport Art Centre is a public institution accountable for its activities -- whereas the Mowlem does what it likes regardless of public opinion and need. When or if it makes itself more accountable and responsive to the public, then it might deserve public money.

At 12:56 PM, Cheesemeister said...

I find that news very interesting. If Mr Bale senior was a trustee too, criticism of the way things are run would strike a sensitive nerve. This would indicate that browbeating can only serve to put more bricks in the wall. Or, like a non-Newtonian fluid: the harder you strike, the more solid it becomes.
A non-Newtonian fluid is still a fluid.
Many of the trustees have professional backgrounds such as engineering, accountancy, law and medicine. How best to approach professional thinking people? It looks as though most here know what results from barbaric sabre rattling. I am an engineer myself, and what works for me is someone who is prepared to find common understanding by engaging my intellect. What approaches have been tried so far, with what degree of success, and what others remain to be tried?

At 4:30 PM, Anonymous said...

So what or who is STRATA?

At 5:07 PM, Keith Roker said...

Strata is a recently formed organisation which aims to promote and develop the arts in Swanage and bring funding for the arts into the town. It is still at a formative stage and welcomes mew members who would like to get involved in this.

Meetings are held at 7.30pm on the first wednesday of each month at Quarr gallery, 17 High Street. More information is available there, for example about projects we would like to develop. The initial membership was concentrated on the visual arts but we would like to broaden this. If anyone would like to be on the email circulation list they can let me have their address at the gallery or post it here and I will add them.

At 2:45 PM, The Postman said...

Well, well..from the Echo online today 17 August:

Curtain up for refit
By Eric Randolph

THE ageing Mowlem Theatre is finally getting the six-figure makeover long-awaited by residents in Swanage.

Owners and trustees are staying tight-lipped about the details, but have confirmed it will be a complete overhaul for the building's 40th anniversary, which could start as early as January.

Nick Sellick, area manager of Hall and Woodhouse, which runs the complex's bars and restaurant, said: "It will be a major refurbishment internally, both upstairs and downstairs. There will be a new entrance and the exterior will be redecorated."

Detailed plans are due to appear in September. Owners say they are "mulling over two or three different ideas."
continued...

At 2:46 PM, Anonymous said...

Let's hope a makeover looks at function and attitude not just cosmetics...


Post a Comment

<< Home
Mowlem Metamorphosis?

Posted by Mr. Paul Angel

Everyone (including me) has had a moan about the state of the Mowlem, especially the disgusting mock-victorian bars, so i decided to have a moan to Hall & Woodhouse, who share responsibility with the trustees (as far as I know). Here was their very positive reply:
"PaulGood news!There is a major internal and external upgrade planned for the Mowlem in 2007. I couldn't agree more that it is currently not doing itself justice.Thanks for your feedback.RegardsNick SellickArea Manager".
Now I think that's great, and even better if they consult local people about the new look they could go for. So I thought we could have a conversation here!My opinion: Go for a clean contemporary look with the bar that sticks out clad in oak, the signs modern and maybe backlit, the glass should be cleaned up and left as glass, the lower area where you can sit outside should have some decent benches and lighting, the interior should be white and have local art in it in a changing display, and they should reflect the modern building, the coastal location and the local art scene...What does anybody else think - BE POSITIVE!

posted by nick storer @ 5:47 PM 12 comments
12 Comments:

At 6:09 PM, nick storer said...

I believe it is very hard for an organisation to change, especially when they need to work with a board of trustees. Presumably they will keep the same demoralised management. Solution, simply put the bar and restaurant separately out to tender. Award the franchise to the best, (not necessarily the highest bidder).
Also clad the outside pillars which support the restaurant above, perhaps with the oak. Put in disabled loos. Make the tunnel area a food court cum gallery. Laminate a colour onto all the glass, I would favour metalic green. Get the cinema manager to advertise his program in the likes of the Guardian (if the REX can be bothered for goodness sake so should the Mowlem). Get rid of the chavs and hoodies that hang around outside and disrupt the films inside. The restaurant bar needs most urgent attention.

At 6:19 PM, nick storer said...

soz but two more points:
1) Sort out the website, you can't even get this weeks film details...
2) Other Towns had equally challenging theatre buildings which they can now celebrate. Think of the makeovers at the Lighthouse in Poole and the de La Warre Pavilion in Bexhill.

At 8:04 PM, The Postman said...

Would love to be positive. But the only way for fresh thinking is to get new people looking at it. Presumably the present people think what they have and do is wonderful -- so why would they change?

At 9:00 PM, Steve Darrington said...

"The man who thinks he can, and the man who thinks he can't, are both right"

To presume that the people running the Mowlem think what they do is wonderful and therefore would never consider change, is to deny them the benefit of your vision!

Why not use this site to make suggestions? I'm sure that they are read by the relevant people at the very least.

At 2:42 PM, Anonymous said...

The consensus is that they do a very good job but unfortunately its the wrong job.

At 10:18 AM, Paul Angel said...

Hall & Woodhouse have just signed a new lease on the restaurant and Bars apparantly, so there won't be a change of franchise there. The fact that I sent a rather grumpy email about the state of the place and that they replied does strike me as positive, though!
The management of the Mowlem theatre does need a kick up the bum, though... I wonder if the problem is that they make enough money to tick over from the rents and leases on shops and bars, so no real effort to attract theatre and cinema goers. They need a proper plan in place (and publicly in place) to improve the quality of the cinema and theatre experience and the nonexistant PR. At the moment it feels like a visit to a badly run village hall! My father rescued and ran the Tivoli in Wimborne for 10 years, so I speak with some experience of how things can be done well!

Don't know how you discourage the chavs - play classical music in tyhe foyers and the chav-hut outside?

At 8:53 PM, Anonymous said...

Thinking of the makeovers at Pool and Bexhill, where did the money come from? Where does the money come from that funds the work at the Mowlem and why are they not awarded huge grants like the others? Why is there no financial support from the town council for a facility as important as a theatre? When the water company offered to turn the plant compound of their building site (where the mock amphitheatre now stands) into a leisure centre, why was that blocked? Who owns the leisure centre that is conveniently located near the caravan park? And who owns the caravan park? Who decides what the money is spent on, regardless of where it comes from? How much does it cost to run a public building? What can be done to increase income, so that the suggested improvements can happen? Is there anyone who can see the value of investing in the arts so that the vital facelift can be done? Was it a mistake to knock down the Victorian building in the first place? Until the chavs are kicked into touch, no-one will want to put anything worth having in a public place. Presumably those with all the bright ideas have no clue about any of the above. Put your hand in your pocket and do something useful with it. Lobby funding bodies to support local arts. Ideas and suggestions are worthless without hard bankable cash. Nothing happens without hard bankable cash. There are some very generous people in Swanage but the kind of work that it really needs has many more noughts after it than those generous people are able to afford.

At 10:03 PM, Cheesemeister said...

I realise this could be dangereous but I am going to stick my neck out and tell you that I am the Chief Theatre Technician at the Mowlem. I absolutely love my job and it pays my bills. I do not have other jobs I can take at the drop of a hat so bear that in mind when you formulate your questions. I will not sully my name with replies to flames, belligerence or ill-considered comments. I will treat you exactly as I would if I met you in person. I don't bite (often) and if you see me in the bar be nice to me, engage me in conversation and intelligent discussion, or just tell me a decent joke. Drinks are always welcome.

I like some of your ideas and I agree with some comments. Personally, I would like to have some architectural lighting in the foyer area when that gets to the top of the list. I have some very creative ideas on how to spend lots of money. That we don't have.

To Paul Angel. You obviously have seen some great ideas from conception to fruition. I have worked at the Tivoli myself when I took a tour there; it is a fabulous theatre front of house and there have been some admirable technical improvements too. Please share your ideas! Examples of real ideas that have worked, or even failed, are worth ten times the weight of off the cuff remarks.

I agree with all the remarks about the hoodies and chavs. They are the bane of my life and even more so of the life of Brian. He's not the Messiah, he's the theatre's Administrator (we do not have a manager, but I'll save that explanation for some other time).

As regards the facelift, my personal taste in architecture does not accommodate buildings typical of the 1960's style. I might add that the internal design is also dreadful and I do not believe it was designed by someone who had ever even been to a theatre let alone tried to put on a show: a loading bay on the first floor? What on earth were they thinking? Did any of you see us doing the get-in or get-out when "Dead Easy" was on? However, a rebuild that rectifies the biggest gaffs in theatre architecture will cost millions and we have to improve what we have before anyone will see the theatre as worthy of such huge investment.

Before you give me earache about the bar or the foyer, remember that as the Chief Technician, my area of influence is mainly the technical aspects of the theatre. I can sympathise till we all end up in a big sloppy group hug but frankly my time is already overstretched with maintaining and improving the technical aspects of the theatre to a standard I would be proud of.

One of the most important lessons I learned when changing careers from IT to professional theatre was being able to work with what you've got and that imperfect punctuality is always preferred in this business to perfect lateness. There isn't a theatre technician in the world who is happy with the facilities available. At least, not one with whom I wish to be associated. Furthermore, lateness of delivery in both live and recorded entertainment is measured in minutes, seconds and fractions of a second, not months, days and hours as it is in IT.

Well that's my opener. I'll come back when time allows.

At 1:14 PM, Anonymous said...

Someone asked about funding. There is a very simple reason why the Mowlem does not get lottery or other public funding. A basic condition of public funding is that the people running the organisations it goes to must be accountable. The Mowlem trustees are not accountable and have absolutely no intention of making themselves accountable. They would rather be kings in a threadbare castle than have to stand for election. Its quite obvious they would rather let it fall into the sea then let the people of Swanage decide how our main cultural asset is run.

At 7:40 PM, Anonymous said...

Hard to be positive. We wanted to plan an evening out for a couple of families, so to be sure of getting seats we tried to book tickets, to be told 'we don't sell tickets in advance'. What sort of blinkered moronic organisation is that?! Certainly doesn't seem like one that actually wants to sell tickets and make money out of running any sort of business. And why will they sell theatre tickets in advance but not film tickets? Time for the trustees to hand over to people with half a commercial brain.

At 2:48 AM, Cheesemeister said...

We are not allowed to. We are also obliged to open the box office 45 minutes before a film. No earlier. No later. If there are two customers or more, we are obliged to show the film. If there is only one customer we are obliged to refund the customer and tell them to come back another time. There are mystery customers, though they don't all make good spies and some are recognisable. These obligations are the terms of our contract. If we break the terms of our contract, they stop supplying films and reserve the right not to supply films already arranged.
With theatre, the contact is with the production company, which is usually far less restrictive than commercial film. Why is this do you wonder? It's all about protection of revenue and branding. Throughout the entire supply chain there is far more money to be made per seat from a big multiplex with their computerised automated projectors requiring one projectionist for many films than at a small theatre that runs on two projectors of pre-war design (but post-war manufacture) requiring full-time attendance for the entire film.

At 7:42 AM, Anonymous said...

Well done Cheesemeister! For far too long the workings of the Mowlem have been shrouded in mystery. Your explanations are most welcome. Have you considered going to a meeting of Swanage's finest, STRATA? Social at the Quarr Gallery this Wednesday 16 August.


Post a Comment