A huge thank you to everyone who took part

…and I mean everyone. Two tutors attended the Finals Day, and their presence was much appreciated, by their students and by me. It was excellent finding out what they think of the competition, and to hear their questions and suggestions for next year. If you have students participating, please think about coming to support them, it would be excellent to meet you.

Having asked for programmes on any subject other than LOVE, this year there was a glorious array of themes, which is good for candidates and judges alike. I shall concentrate here on the theme of programmes, because this can be a make-or-break issue, not just in the choice of subject matter, but in how it is treated. In this regard, singers have the edge because they are taught how to put together a programme, with a recital programme being their responsibility.

Actors miss out on this skill, which is a shame, because knowing how to construct something entertaining or informative, whatever the required length may be, can come in very useful. I know that expanding their programme and then entering the Camden Festival was suggested to at least two candidates. If you have your own programme of, say, 50 minutes, you already have a show you could put on at the Edinburgh Fringe. It pays to be proactive, and if you can put your own show together, you will always have something to present when opportunity knocks.

Naming the topic

“Losing Spectacularly”, “Displacement”, and “The Dangerous Young Man” were all programmes whose mere titles piqued interest. You choose the subject, and so you can change it if what you are exploring veers off in another, more fruitful direction. For example, Tobias Martin-Clarke’s programme “Black Experience Through the Ages” could more properly have been called “Black Male Experience Through the Ages”, as it included no female experience. Similarly, the suggestion of an historical review was not fulfilled: Shakespeare at one end, and mostly 20th- or 21st-century writing at the other.

There is more relevant writing from the 18th century, including the autobiography of Olaudah Equiano and poetry by William Blake. Later, there is Jim in ‘The Adventures of Huckelberry Finn’ or what about British composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor and his experiences in America? All these could have contributed to a more rounded survey of the subject. Tobias was a deserving prize winner, but his programme (or the title) would have benefited from a sharper focus. Basically, you are labelling the tin, so do what it says!

Compare and contrast

One candidate had only two items in their programme, contrasted by gender experience, and was well presented, but limited what the candidate could show of their abilities and range. As I wrote in a piece about this competition for the WordSong website, think of the programme as the menu for a glorious meal. In your eight minutes, you can include an entrée, a main course, and a dessert. If desired, there is even space for some palate cleansers, soup or nuts, etc., etc., etc. (without overstretching the metaphor). Each item should contrast with and/or complement what preceded and what follows.

Begin with your opening gambit, either expand or put a counterargument with the next item, and eventually round off the programme with a conclusion or synthesis of some kind. That way, we, the consumers, feel satisfied: we have been on a journey with the proverbial beginning, middle, and end, and we have arrived at the end of the narrative knowing more than we did before. George Adams’ programme “The Dangerous Young Man” opened with a raucous rendition of ‘Sweet Caroline,’ which would not have been out of place in the toxic masculine environment of The Firm ( for those who remember that terrifying film about 80’s football violence). We went on a journey of differing perspectives, ending with a piece that stood the whole subject on its head; a terrific example of imaginative programming.

Choosing the material

On the website, it says that candidates should choose from ‘the vast wealth of material from over five hundred years of prose and poetry written by authors from around the world in the English language’. I believe it specifies that nothing should be in translation, but as long as the piece was originally written in English, it can have originated from anywhere, geographically or otherwise. It is always heartening to see some Shakespeare in the programme, and we had some glorious examples this year, from the plays and the sonnets.

However, this year, I do not remember a single extract from a letter, a diary, or any news items or magazine articles. Tom George Fletcher included a piece issued by Equity in his programme “Who Gets To Dream”, which could have been delivered in a dry, matter-of-fact way, but he animated it into impassioned, persuasive rhetoric. It is up to the performer to find the areas in reportage or opinion pieces that might offer opportunities for dramatisation and exploit them. There is a place for the disinterested delivery of the newsreader, but if used, it should be contrasted with something animated and dramatic.

There are more places offering useful material than the mainstream, and it pays to search them out.

Variation of delivery

The next layer to consider is delivery variation. A succession of items of the same tempo, emotional pitch or intensity, however varied in intellectual content, can be stultifying to watch. More importantly, the candidate has not shown the range of their skill set, and that is what an ideal programme should enable them to do. The natural tempo of one item may be completely at odds with the habitual rhythm of the performer, so be daring and try a new energy! Follow something quiet and introspective with something outgoing and loud, something sad with something comic.

Comedy is notoriously difficult, even harder without an audience to play off, but it pays huge dividends in terms of audience engagement. Priya Chapman gave us Pam Ayres’ poem ‘Oh I wish I’d looked After Me Teeth’, in which she sparkled. Fortune Ibrahim, our winner, included a cracking monologue from Michaela Coel’s ‘Chewing Gum Dreams’, which raised her programme to a different level. Letting an audience smile, or even laugh, acts like leaven; it broadens the programme’s scope and elevates the performer’s status.

Physicality

How you present your programme is up to you, and this is where the question of physicality comes in. The stamp of an individual tutor was in evidence in the performances of the three candidates from Central. All three displayed an easy physicality which further animated their programmes, and all three used the space to their best advantage.

As judges, we tried to make all candidates in the first round feel free to use props or chairs if they needed them, to use the stage, the step or the floor, and to engage with us or not as they thought fit. It can be hard to be spontaneous in a competitive environment, but at this stage in their development, students should have the confidence to change things if they think that a different use of their hands is more truthful, or a wider transit of the space more arresting.

You are in charge; make the space your own. Similarly, how you present each item may well require a different physicality; feel free and be truthful. As Martha Graham said, ‘The body never lies’. The actor may feel more comfortable sitting down with their hands in their pockets, but the audience wants to know how the character feels. Words are only one part of the message. How you express those words, and what your body is doing at the time, will fill out the rest of the story.

Examples

‘Words and Music’ on a Sunday evening on Radio 3 is a good source of inspiration. The standard of readers varies enormously, and the programme does have the advantage of being able to use musical extracts. What is important, however, is the choice of material and how the editors have tried to keep the listener intrigued by constantly varying tone, accent, time period and perspective from one moment to the next.

Self-tapes

A little postscript on self-tapes: it might be that next year we dispense with the preliminary round and invite candidates to send in self-tapes instead.

You already know the basics. Neutral background, landscape, mid-shot, being able to see expressive hands is an advantage, so from the waist to the top of the head. If a full-length shot is needed, move the camera further away. Be careful of your eye line!

The competition states that programmes should be delivered from memory – one candidate read their programme. Not only did this emotionally and physically inhibit their performance, but it was also not what was required. And do not try to kid a kidder. I saw eyes darting to the bit of paper stuck to the halo light, looking down at the script on the floor, and someone reading the whole lot off the autocue to one side of the camera. If you are going to use auto cue, make sure it is really close to the lens! Either way, you will have to learn the whole thing to perform later, so start learning it now. And there is a difference between the lens and the screen. If it means looking away from the image of yourself into the lens, please do so. Then, when whoever is assessing the tapes looks at them, they will believe that they are the one being addressed, not someone more interesting over their shoulder! (Image © Variety Magazine)

That’s it. I hope these suggestions help both tutors and candidates.
Best of luck with everything,
Marilyn Cutts