Falling Headlong – and how we can make theatre trailers work

Headlong recently released the trailer for their upcoming season; a glitzy, sharp looking affair which is in many people’s eyes a piece of art in itself.  However, within all the fanfare regarding its high production values has been a sense that the trailer has been embraced as some type of cause celebré as far as theatre’s relationship with social media is concerned.  Is this fair on Headlong, and does this undermine what they are trying to achieve?

Published on YouTube, Headlong’s trailer runs at a little under five minutes and aims to give us a sense of each upcoming production in their new season; from the sharp-suited self-harmer representing American Psycho: The Musical to the recreation of the Tiananmen Square protests with a model tank for Chimerica, we are given brief glimpses of what to expect each production whilst not giving too much away – tantalising us with the desire to know more.  As with the best movie trailers, we are left wanting to know more about the production(s) without feeling like we’ve seen the ‘best bits’.

Despite suggestions to the contrary, theatre trailers are not something new; they’ve been in existence for some time, in various different forms.  As everyday use of social media has provided a greater sense of connectivity, theatre companies and venues have tried to embrace this and have produced trailers at various scales, and in various forms.  The vast majority of West End and Broadway shows have some form of electronic press kit (EPK) available online, including a glitzy YouTube trailer featuring extracts from the production and – if the show has already opened – talking heads of audience members saying how much they enjoyed the show; even Fringe productions with a small marketing budget can put together a trailer quickly and easily which can be uploaded to YouTube to help increase the reach of their production.  Beyond the content, there is also a need to deliver the trailer in a way which allows people to learn more about your work; Chris Unitt has posted a great blog on how Headlong have failed to do this, which is well worth a read.

However, part of the reason their trailer stands apart from others is that it can be viewed as a piece of art in its own right, which in itself is not a new concept for theatre trailers but is an area where Headlong have been able to progress the form further; the production values and the obvious time, money and expertise which have gone into the trailer help set it apart from its contemporaries within the subsidised world.  The production values seem almost equal to those of the EPKs for commercial productions, whilst retaining the apparent artistic integrity which many feel that world lacks; the level of thought and detail which has gone into the trailer should protect the company from any accusations of ‘selling-out’.  Crucially, audiences will tend to associate the quality of the trailer with the quality of the final product – hence the strong positive reactions to Headlong’s trailer.

Theatrical trailers should, in reality, be subject to the same considerations we make of movie trailers; they have the same modus operandi of trying to sell something to an audience, and equally they should serve to tease the audience into wanting to see the final product rather than giving too much away.  One accusation levelled at trailers for big-budget films is that, all-too-frequently, the ‘best bits’ and big set-plays are revealed in the trailers – the trailer for The Cabin in the Woods was recently accused of revealing a key plot twist, making it a ‘spoiler’ for the film itself and potentially putting people off seeing the full film.  Should a theatrical trailer reveal too much about the show’s content, then that may also serve to put people off – not only because they may feel like they have seen enough already, but also because theatre has a tendency to be poorly represented when filmed.  As theatre relies less on overloading the senses than cinema does, the audio/visual aspects of a production will undoubtedly translate less well to film – and without being in the context of the space a show is performed in, the design will most likely have much less of an impact on an audience.

As can be seen above, to suggest Headlong are venturing into uncharted territory by creating a trailer and promoting it through social media is a fool’s errand; where they have stepped away from the pack is in the production values.  In terms of the ‘message’ of the trailer, how we measure its success and failure is reaching an audience is a far more pertinent question.

With Headlong Artistic Director Rupert Goold taking lead on the trailer, it also ensures that considered artistic decisions are made regarding its content which pay full respect to the individual works of each writer involved with the productions; as the person who oversees the whole creative vision of the company, Goold has an understanding of what their work is trying to achieve and ensures this is a motivating factor in a trailer – rather than falling into the trap of finding the most controversial, provocative or safe ideas across the whole spectrum of work which boils things down to an oversimplified idea.  Although for the technical aspects it may be understandable for a theatre company to look to work with a director specialising in film, having someone with a key dramaturgical understanding of the work is crucial to accurately representing the work.  Audiences who see a trailer which doesn’t reflect the final product will feel defrauded, and alienating audiences in this way serves only to undermine the importance of a trailer – prioritising short-term audience ‘capture’ over long-term development.

The biggest concern with regards to the reaction to this trailer is the insinuation that Headlong are obsessed with trying to reach ‘the Facebook generation’.  Without having said anything of the sort themselves, the company have in effect been accused of being obsessed with the demographic both largely representative of social media users and which theatres wish to bring through their doors – those aged 18-25 with disposable income and who will hopefully form long-term relationships with theatre.  For various reasons, subsidised theatre seems to have failed to truly connect with that generation in a way which ensures continued engagement and attendance, and the pressure from various quarters to succeed seems only to undermine any attempts to do so – see the fall-out from the abandoning of A Night Less Ordinary scheme as evidence of this; in the meantime, commercial theatre seems to have enjoyed much greater success, with the likes of Wicked amassing huge numbers of Facebook fans through clever use of online content.  It may well be that Headlong’s high production values in their trailer helps them to connect with this audience, but it would be unfair to put pressure on them to succeed which they haven’t invited; as with a company’s theatrical work, they should be allowed to be innovative without being burdened with unrealistically high expectations or the pressures of an expectant industry.

Whether or not Headlong’s trailer reaches large numbers of people through social media remains to be seen; however, it is not the be-all and end-all with regards to what they are trying to achieve.  Being realistic about the potential of a theatrical trailer in reaching an audience is vital to both improving the form and understanding how best to reach even further, but without necessarily having to rely on one company to lead the way.

Nurturing the blogging community (A response to Jake Orr)

A couple of weeks ago Jake Orr at A Younger Theatre asked why the UK theatre blogging community have fallen so silent – and referred to my own blog when pointing out the lack of consistency in posting.  It’s only fair that I offer up my own personal reasons for a lack of consistency – some of which I imagine also apply to other blog writers.

Firstly, I should point out that blogging is at present merely something I do alongside my primary line of work – that of a theatre producer.  I choose to write for pleasure rather than profit, and the act of writing blogs is something I feel can help to support my other practices by engaging in critical dialogue with various points of culture and potentially stimulating debate and thought around the work I engage with; there are huge benefits to me in writing which are not to do with financial gain.  However, this also means that writing continuously is not financially sustainable for me; I have to focus on my other work to remain solvent, and the more time I spend earning money the less I have to write.

Time becomes a huge issue for me at various points; at the very point Jake wrote his blog, I was about to set off on a tour across the British Isles and – even though I was keen to write a response quickly – I didn’t have any real free time to spend on anything outside my producing work.  Since the turn of the new year, I have found myself increasingly busy with producing work which has been fantastic – but which has also meant I haven’t had a great deal of time to spend on blogging.  In itself this isn’t necessarily a problem, as sometimes writing about certain topics and issues comes easily due to my passion for them – but quite often the time needed to really flesh out a blog or ideas isn’t available to me.  As with anyone with a perfectionist streak to them, I’m not keen on putting something out I’m not particularly happy with; I have plenty of blogs which I have started and not published for that very reason.

Even if there is time available to me, that’s not to say there’s going to be something I care strongly enough about to write about.  Again referring back to the concept of writing for pleasure, I’m under no pressure or obligations to write to a certain frequency or about certain issues – although in my mind I have an idea of how consistent I would like to be with my writing, I do not have anyone breathing down my neck to ensure I’m delivering ‘on deadline’.  At a point where I’m still honing my writing style, I feel my energies are better focused on quality rather than quantity; I’d rather post an in-depth 2000-word blog entry every three weeks, rather than post a 200-word one every week which only scratches the surface of the issue I’m addressing.  It may well be that, in time, I’m able to encapsulate ideas in a briefer form than I do currently – but I’m under no obligation to do so at this time.

From reading other blogs, in some ways I feel other writers have a greater impact by writing less frequently; rather than diluting their output, they write when they feel moved to do so and that passion is clear within their writing.  As linked to in Jake’s original article, the entries by Dan Rebellato and Dan Bye clearly come from the heart and are fuelled by a sense that these are issues which need to be raised – should they have come during a spell of consistent writing, then perhaps their impact would have been less effective?

With regards to content, it’s perhaps interesting to consider the writing coming from those who self-identify as artists first and foremost; the initial starting point of their writing comes from a place directly invested in the art, and informed by practice.  Of course, there are plenty of examples of writers who identify themselves more clearly as theatre writers or critics – but perhaps their positioning on the outside of theatre-making processes provides them with a different perspective which means their writing is read in a different way?  Perception of the writer’s background could have as much to do with this as the content of their writing; I’m aware that I certainly read articles and blogs differently if I’m aware the writer is a theatre maker, as I almost subconsciously connect their writing to what I know of their work and processes.  In this regard, it is interesting to learn that theatre writers are beginning to spend time in rehearsal rooms – such as Maddy Costa working with Chris Goode and Jake Orr with Dirty Market Theatre – which may help to break down barriers between the two fields, and hopefully will help to create more open dialogue and a greater diversity in theatre writing.  By writing more about process, it may help to encourage artists to write about their process and to add to the community already in existence.

Beyond content, there is also the question of style.  I personally find long-form writing such as that of Chris Goode’s blog and Exuent Magazine’s essays to be fascinating and engaging, as I feel it allows a greater analysis of issues to form and for ideas to not be condensed; however, these writings seem to exist in places where the word-count limitations of many popular platforms (such as The Guardian’s Theatre Blog) do not restrict.  As anyone with any experience of academic study will tell you, writing to a word count is always a challenge and often compromises the quality and clarity of the message you are trying to convey; a writer may find themselves having to cut out things of value to make a piece fit, or may need to flesh out work with filler material which lessens the impact of the stronger content.  Being able to write to a word count without compromising quality is a skill which needs to be developed and honed over time, and in some respects this is something I hope to achieve – but only through first being able to write in the form and style which I choose to, and allowing my work to develop naturally.  If I’m being required to write to a consistent time-line, then I may be less inclined to write at all.

To me, the blogging community I exist within is something I believe relies on self-perpetuation; by writing about things we provoke others to respond, which in turn inspires them to write again and add to the ecology of voices around the art we create.  As with all forms of creative output, there is inevitably a need to experiment and invigorate the medium  – and provided there are people out there willing to try new things both in theatre making and theatre writing, then hopefully there will be a consistency and diversity in the blogging and writing community to recognise that.

Producing Equality

Originally written for ArtsProfessional

I’ve recently been swamped with work for a new company I’m working with as producer.  The reasons for the company existing and the sense of excitement and community within the company are invigorating, but in many respects I’d rather the company didn’t need to exist; the fact that it does suggests there are serious issues of inequality within the theatre industry which have yet to be properly addressed.

Agent 160 Theatre Company came to be due to the lack of opportunities for female playwrights to see their work produced; Sphinx Theatre’s ‘Vamps, Vixens and Feminists’ conference in 2009 revealed that just 17% plays professionally produced in British theatre were by female writers.  Quite why the number is so low is open to interpretation and could be affected by a number of different factors; however, there has clearly been a real lack of addressing this and trying to encourage change in perceptions.  Writers’ work should be judged and produced on its own merits, and in keeping with artistic policies of companies and venues; if anyone is guilty of adding additional, unwritten caveats regarding gender then this is a damning indictment of their supposed professionalism.

I personally find it absurd that gender should play any part in an artist’s professional development.  Within my work I have met and worked with some exceptionally talented and hard-working female artists across various disciplines, but at no point have I felt their gender has had any effect on how myself or my peers treat them or their work; should this be happening at any level then it disappoints me greatly, and as a male it worries me that my own professionalism may be called into question due to the actions of others purely on a gender basis.  There is undoubtedly a sense that the patriarchal system is alive and well in the upper reaches, and that may affect opportunities as people climb the ladder – but sincerely hope time will see the make-up of those in the upper-echelons will change to be more representative of the industry and society as a whole.

For now, though, companies such as Agent 160 will do what we can to help promote the work of those who deserve to be seen.  As we prepare to launch, there is definitely a sense that people recognise what we are doing is sadly necessary.

2012 – It’s Not All Doom and Gloom

So, welcome to 2012 – if you believe the fear-mongers, it’s the year the arts in Britain will come to an end.  Perhaps the Mayan prophecy was just misinterpreted, and instead of the actual end of days we’re looking at an arts apocalypse?

Well, if you ask me it’s not all doom and gloom.  Yes, there are things happening this year which will bring about their own set of negative repercussions – be it the impact of funding cuts really beginning to take hold or the Olympics supposedly seeing West End theatres struggling to fill seats – but this should not be the time for introspection and negativity; instead the arts need to respond in a positive way and show the world just how important they are to this country.

This isn’t the first time in recent history that the arts have seen funding slashed and support harder to come by, but we as a community shouldn’t be burdened with an over-reliance on securing money and resources to create work.  The growing pop-up and DIY movements show there are large numbers of artists who are determined to work together to ensure that exciting and experimental work continues to be made – and as such work is made, others can be encouraged to follow.  As with any community in times of crisis, we can either pull together or pull away from each other – one path can lead to reward, and the other to ruin.

Witnessing the continuing growth of companies such as Forest Fringe, venues such as Stoke Newington International Airport and communities such as the burgeoning arts scene in Bristol should fill us of all passionate about the arts with hope; they continue to face any challenges with a sense of purpose and a determination to ensure both participants and audiences can continue to benefit from their work.  Creating wider networks helps share ideas and provides inspiration to keep working – the power of the internet and events such as Improbable’s Devoted and Disgruntled and Pilot Theatre’s Shift Happens mean we continue to be connected to one another and do not have to be restricted to geographical boundaries when it comes to collaborating.

With regards to the Olympic conundrum, I feel this presents a perfect opportunity for regional theatre to thrive.  The theatre industry can be notoriously London-centric, and should theatres go dark and see a potential downturn in attendance figures in the capital then regional theatre can fill the gap in provisions – contrary to popular belief, the theatre-going public will not all disappear this summer.  If people are willing to travel to London to see a show, then why shouldn’t they be encouraged to travel elsewhere?  Here is an opportunity for regional theatre to stand up and show people just what fantastic work it is creating, and I sincerely hope it takes up the challenge.

And there’s nothing to say that the West End is going to suffer.  The bright lights and big shows will continue to be a draw to tourists, and shows such as Matilda, One Man, Two Guvnors and Clybourne Park have proved that audiences will see new shows in the West End; there is no need to assume that only the Phantoms and Wickeds of the world will bring people in.  The barrier of high ticket prices still continues to discourage many from attending – which, to producers’ defence, may be a by-product of high rent costs – but perhaps short-term reductions will be rewarded with fuller houses, and subsequently higher income rather than losses?

So, let’s not get dragged down by the nay-sayers and harbingers of doom this year – let us all stand up for what we believe in and continue to be proud to be a part of the arts in 2012.  In this Olympic year, let’s pick up the torch and run with it.

‘Long Player’: A Response

Jane Scott’s recent entry on the Guardian Theatre Blog addresses so-called ‘long play’ theatre, and suggests that the very concept of such pieces is riddled with problems which can undermine their purpose. However, her entry seems to cover a multitude of diverse issues which are tenuously linked under this heading, and I feel strongly that further exploration of some key points is needed to flesh out the debate.

One of the focus points of Scott’s blog is the Old Vic New Voices 24 Hour Plays, which she states is “a showcase, where selected young directors, producers, writers and actors get to strut their stuff on the famous stage”. Although I can understand to some extent why she may focus on the idea of it being a showcase, having taken part in the process myself I feel this does not truly reflect the purpose of the event; as Diana Damian points out in the comments section of the Guardian blog, the Old Vic New Voices version of the 24 Hour Plays places great emphasis on the process – it’s a chance for those involved to test their skills in a high-pressure environment, and to learn from working closely with their peers about creating a piece of work from scratch. Those in attendance as industry guests understand the concept and process, and are aware that the final pieces cannot fully represent the skills of those involved in the evening – but it can give glimpses of people’s ability or potential, and being selected in itself is a reflection that the participants stood out above other potential candidates for any number of reasons. Even if one were to look at the event as simply a showcase, the participants clearly must have some talent to ensure they don’t fail in delivering work with some positive points – although the audience will largely be made up of sympathetic friends and family, there is still a responsibility to entertain those who have bought a ticket.

Moving on, the article itself doesn’t seem to know what it’s really critiquing – is it performances created over a short time period, durational performances or late-night events? They’re clearly all very different things – for example, the Bush Theatre’s Sixty-Six Books has been a long time in the making, with the production having been developed over a long period and writers being commissioned to create something over a period of time considerably longer than 24 hours. The scope and ambition of such a project is something I feel should be commended for a Fringe theatre, and the volume of the King James Bible creates the issue of either abridging the books or finding a way to present all works over a longer period of time; offering the durational performance provided a solution to this issue without compromising the content, and offered an alternative form of complete engagement than asking people to commit to returning across a number of performances on different days.  The length of the performance itself may have been too much for many to last, but being aware of the length of performance at least also gave audiences the chance to steel themselves in preparation to be in it for the long haul; although Michael Billington may not have seen the full production (no doubt due to the pressures of filing deadlines), the accounts of those such as WhatsOnStage’s Honour Bayes who did endure offer a much more comprehensive account of the production – as opposed to making mention of their level of endurance as if some kind of badge of honour, which only serves to make such events feel like the ‘gimmick’ Scott accuses them of being in her blog.  Subsequently it seems that perception is everything – a complicity is requested by such pieces (as with the Nursery Festival’s improvathon, which Scott refers to later in her blog) to embrace the nature of the performance without undermining its strength and purpose as a dramatic work.

With regards to performance times, later slots may lead to different audience responses than the traditional 7:30pm slot, but audience reactions will vary for any number of reasons far beyond a time slot – what makes a midnight audience any lesser than a midweek matinee one, or one largely populated by school/college groups?  And what of festivals, with their varying time slots – should we look at them differently as they have a more committed audience, ignoring those who may be from the local community or non-regular theatre attendees who are dipping their toes into the waters? I feel the argument about performance times is far less pertinent in the context of Scott’s blog than the debate regarding performance length; there are already far too many caveats and variables involved in performance times and audience make-up which make it difficult to draw any conclusions from the examples Scott draws upon and undermines her argument against performances such as the Midnight Matinees at Shakespeare’s Globe and Tristan Bates Theatre.  Scott proclaims her suspicion is that there is not “the same level of performance and alertness from the audience” in events such as this, and that Midnight Matinees attract a younger audience, but this is all mere speculation and fails to make a strong case either way; assumptions and statements such as these are reductive and look foolhardy without any evidence to back them up.

Scott concludes her blog by suggesting that works such as those she refers to seem “a waste of everyone’s time” if done badly or pointlessly – but is that so?  Surely the experience of creating work which fails provides those involved with the opportunity to learn from the experience, with a view to improving things should there be a next time?  Moving away from the traditionally-accepted forms of theatre-making will always entail an element of risk as it challenges people’s perceptions and expectations, and challenging convention helps artists and the form itself to move forwards; dismissing such efforts as wasting people’s time either misses the point or suggests that the currently accepted format of theatre (six weeks rehearsals, 7:30pm start time, home before midnight) is without flaws – which is definitely not the case.  If people wish to continue to push things forward by working in such ways, then they have my support.

The ‘write’ person for the job?

With the announcement that Michael Boyd will be leaving his post of Artistic Director of the Royal Shakespeare Company (alongside Executive Director Vikki Heywood), thoughts have turned to who may take one of the most high-profile posts in British theatre.  Articles, blogs and social media have thrown a range of names into the hat, many of them the respected directors you would expect to be linked to such a post – but should companies and venues be thinking beyond the expected norm?

As with all big jobs, the long-list which arises from public discussion has been heavily scrutinised as much for who isn’t on it as who is; The Guardian have been running a poll of possible candidates, and the lack of women being suggested has once again raised concerns that the long-standing hegemonic perception of white males dominating such posts is far from a fallacy.  Although there are suggestions that the white male isn’t as prevalent as he once was – see the Donmar appointing Josie Rourke, the Bush appointing Madani Younis and Roxana Silbert taking over the Birmingham REP for examples – the so-called ‘big’ jobs seem to be a closed shop in some respects; perhaps due to what companies are looking for, or maybe due to people not applying as they don’t consider themselves to be in with a shot of getting the jobs.

However, another barrier may be the perception that such posts are almost always going to directors.  It seems ingrained that directors are the people to run buildings, but is unfairly suggesting that candidates from other disciplines need not apply?  What is to say a writer couldn’t do as good a job of running a company?  Put simply, directing a production and running a building are two very different things – although parallels can be drawn between the two roles, with Executive Directors, General Managers and Producers now taking on the vast majority of the day-to-day responsibilities of company management, does the role of an Artistic Director focus more now on an artistic/creative policy which could be delivered by candidates from a wider field?  Mark Ravenhill has been promoting his case for the RSC job in a slightly tongue-in-cheek manner on Twitter by aiming to hijack the Guardian poll – and although maybe the complexities of this particular job wouldn’t see him considered, I feel the lack of writers running established companies needs further scrutiny.

There are plenty of examples of writers successfully running large companies, and in turn providing a much clearer sense of artistic identity to a company through being loyal to a particular vision.  Perhaps the most obvious example comes in the shape of Alan Ayckbourn and the Stephen Joseph Theatre – the appointment of one of Britain’s most eminent contemporary playwrights as their permanent Artistic Director (moving away from their previous annual appointments following the death of Stephen Joseph) proved to be a masterstroke by the company, allowing them to premiere a number of Ayckbourn works which in turn drew audiences to Scarborough from much further afield than may previously have considered conceivable.  Furthermore, the presence of Ayckbourn has also led to the National Student Drama Festival calling Scarborough its home since 1990 – bringing emerging artists, students, professionals and academics to the town and leading to increased investment in the local economy.

Other examples perhaps lend more credence to the concept of an Artistic Director as an auteur – during David Farr’s career as an Artistic Director, his time at the Lyric Hammersmith in particular saw the work produced have a particularly strong visual aesthetic; the production of Kafka’s Metamorphosis (which he adapted and directed) is a clear example of this.  Chris Goode’s work with Camden People’s Theatre helped raise the profile of the venue and established a clear sense of the work they were interested in producing and programming, which in turn provided the support of other companies and venues which helped to support Goode’s own professional development.  Even further afield, the appointment of Britain’s Kwame Kwei-Armah at Baltimore’s Centrestage shows that big companies can recognise the potential of those from a writing background to help shape a company’s identity – Kwei-Armah has already announced plans for 50% of the company’s work to be new commissions.

It is perhaps a misnomer to refer to the above examples as simply ‘writers’, when they all have also established themselves at least to some extent as successful directors; however, their background in writing can begin to pave the way for those solely identified as writers to begin to apply for these jobs.  In order to open the application process more, perhaps the role of the Artistic Director needs to be redefined or even ‘reclaimed’ – focusing on its importance as a creative leader of an organisation and the person who drives its artistic agenda, rather than the person who directs most of its shows.  As mentioned previously, company structures now also offer support in the business elements which may put off some candidates – so candidates from more diverse professional backgrounds should be encouraged to apply to ensure an increased likelihood in appointing the ‘best person for the job’.

The example of the RSC is perhaps a slightly different case to those suggested above due to the focus on Shakespeare’s canon of work; in that respect at least, perhaps the company is best led by a director who can programme and present the work in a way which appeals to a contemporary audience.  That being said, with the company commissioning an increasing amount of new writing there is also a need for someone to have a good handle on how to package this work alongside the classical canon; the two shouldn’t be mutually exclusive, as there is an expectation of a certain quality of any work under the RSC banner.  Roxana Silbert has played a large role in leading the RSC’s programme of new writing since her appointment as Associate Director – largely influenced by her history of supporting new work at Paines Plough and the Traverse Theatre – but it is important that this work doesn’t sit outside the main programme of work, thus depriving it of the profile and support it should deserve; the RSC’s website states that the company was founded on a belief that “new writing was as important an element as Shakespeare”, but it stills fails to draw the same profile and audiences as the work from the classical canon.

It is reassuring to see a number of recent Artistic Director appointments coming from a pool of directors who truly understand and champion the cause of new writing – Steve Marmion at Soho Theatre and Orla O’Loughlin at the Traverse Theatre being some examples; perhaps in time perceptions of the role of an Artistic Director may change and writers themselves will feel confident to follow in their footsteps and throw their hats into the ring, drawing on their craft and understanding of the new writing scene to breathe fresh life into companies in need of a change.

Maintaining your ‘brand’

Originally written for ArtsProfessional

For a while now, I’ve been telling myself that I’ll update my website. Coming off the back of my hiatus from producing, I’ve felt it’s time for me to look again at what I’ve put online – and to think about what purpose it actually serves.

That’s proved to be quite a difficult question to answer. As a freelancer a website can be an invaluable tool to let people know a bit more about you and your work, and gives you the opportunity to provide information a standard CV doesn’t – for many freelancers, their website acts as an online portfolio. My own website has served this purpose to some extent thus far, but at the same time the nature of my work means I feel a slightly different approach needs to be taken – as information regarding my work is naturally more text-based than visual, making decisions about what information is included and to what volume can be tricky.

To inform my update/overhaul, I’ve looked at a number of websites belonging to other arts freelancers to see what I think works – in an industry where large numbers of people are self-employed, being proactive in seeking work and generating opportunities is part and parcel of simply keeping one’s head above water. I find it quite surprising that, with this in mind, it seems from friends and colleagues I’ve spoken to that few universities and drama schools seem to advise graduates of this; the majority of people I know have been sent out into the world and left to fend for themselves with regards to finding work, when even the smallest amount of advice – or even raising awareness of approaches to finding work – could potentially make a huge difference. From my own experiences at drama school, advice sessions regarding how to survive as a freelancer were only offered as off-timetable classes, instead of even the smallest of concessions being made to find time within normal classes to offer such advice to all students. Although not everyone will go into self-employed work upon graduating, there is an increased likelihood within the arts that their careers will go in that direction at some point in the future – so advice given at this stage could eventually prove incredibly useful, instead of leaving people unsure of how to pursue a freelance career.

In terms of the websites I’ve looked at, it’s been quite interesting to see the different approaches people have taken, and how similar content can be more or less effective depending on the nature of their work. For actors – particularly those without representation – a personal website offers a great way to show the world what they have done, and to integrate different media as content; whilst large numbers are on Spotlight, the nature of their database means potential employers or collaborators not registered with them cannot always see their profiles – and furthermore, the standard layout of Spotlight profiles is quite bland and functional. A website can contain the same information as a Spotlight profile (and can also integrate the profile through fairly simple HTML script), but can take on a more personal look which may fit with an actor’s casting or is simply easier on the eye – and can also include showreels, production photos/headshots, news about upcoming productions and reviews. Whilst the early stages of your career can often involve trying to give your details to anyone in the industry you meet, for an actor giving a business card with a website address is much easier than having to carry a pile of headshots and CVs around with you!

For those of us less inclined to take the spotlight, a slightly different approach may be needed. I’ve seen a number of websites for artists which include some form of online CV, detailing previous credits, key skills and training/education information – and often references, which can be hugely valuable in an industry where advocacy plays a large part in getting ahead. Unlike actors, the background of particular projects and the individual’s role in them plays a much bigger part – as certain backstage and creative roles can be interpreted in different ways, a clearer idea of what they entail can be useful for potential employers and collaborators. Additionally, this can also give a clearer sense of an individual’s main skills and interests – ensuring any approaches regarding collaboration can be made with the knowledge that a project may be of interest to them, and that they are a suitable and interesting person to work with. As there may be quite a lot of information on a website, good navigation links are hugely important – particularly with regards to contact information; if someone can’t find how to contact you, then this could be the difference between employment and staying on the shelf.

In terms of the actual practicalities of building a website, then a good-looking, easy-to-use site should be a priority – if it is going to represent you as a ‘brand’ online, then it’s best to do it properly instead of cutting corners. There are a number of companies who can build you a website for a small fee, and who will host it in a way which makes it easy for you to update; they will often have choices regarding the site’s appearance, allowing you to go for a look which you think best meets your needs. Of course, this will also limit you in terms of the ‘uniqueness’ of your site – you will undoubtedly have to compromise between what you would like and what is actually available. Alternatively, if you feel so inclined and have the time you can teach yourself web design – an approach that I have taken. Although this won’t be for everyone, my personal experience is that web design is actually much easier than it appears once you get into it – I’ve used a number of tutorial websites to guide me along the way, and once I developed a grasp of the coding language I’ve looked at features I like on other websites and have tried to understand how they work. Through developing this understanding and learning how to combine it with designs created in Adobe Photoshop, I’ve been able to create a look I feel is personal to me and is slightly more interesting to look at. The time invested in developing these skills has been worth it for me – but whatever approach you may choose to take, remember that you want your site to represent you in a forum where people all across the globe can find out about you.

So, over the coming weeks my website will be going through some changes – do feel free to let me know what you think!