On July 13, I wrote pointing out inequities in the voting for the Colorado Theatre Guild’s Henry Awards, and suggested an overhaul that would widely expand the pool of voters (beyond the eight current critics) to make it more fair for all eligible shows.
In response, Westword theater critic and Henrys voter Juliet Wittman offered this thought-provoking but thorough .
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it’s a very interesting and well-written essay on the overall purpose of reviews.
Here are samples from other responses our proposal generated:
Hello John,
It is so obvious that you have really thought about this problem and are going to be instrumental in fixing it. As a member of “one of the 48 other companies,” and a participant in some of the others, I want to thank you.
Thank you for caring enough about theater in Denver to want to overhaul The Henrys. I am not saying that every single show produced in Denver is good enough for nomination. I do believe, however, that many of them are being overlooked due to the fact that we do not get the press that some of the bigger companies do. Even if we have the best show in our company’s season (which “Letters to Home” was), we were non-existent on the CTG radar.
One suggestion, while having the 25 contest winner judges would be a wonderful addition, it might be a good idea to have some representation of the theater community or perhaps representation of companies themselves. I hope that makes sense.
For instance, Stacey Nelms and Bernie Cardell go to see theater as much as they breathe, and it is my belief that they would be an amazing addition to the CTG panel of judges as community representatives for their companies. We run into a bit of a cluster if every eligible company wants to have a representative member and I don’t know how to solve that exactly. Representative members would have to do the same things you are suggesting volunteer members do, but I think that they shouldn’t be able to vote for their own shows. It would allow companies to truly explore each other.
Thanks for everything John. I definitely think you are onto something, and I say, let’s keep the problem-solving going!
Maggie Stillman, Hunger Artists Ensemble Theatre
John,
I’m not sure how the new folks would be vetted, but in Austin, Texas, they ameliorated the situation by tossing out the high and low scores – to help prevent personal biases (either way) from dictating a nomination and/or win.
Jeremy Cole, San Francisco
NOTE: A few days before the Henry Awards, Geminal-Stage Denver withdrew, declining its two Henry Award nominations, including best season by a company. Here is founder Ed Baierlein’s explanation and response:
John,
I’ve read over your proposal for the Henrys several times. Honestly, I become overwhelmed with its complexity, but I recognize that’s my own shortcoming. It’s obvious you’ve done some deep thinking about this issue and I trust that your solution would result in a process that was as “fair” as it can be.
The reasons I withdrew from Henry Awards consideration, in ascending order:
1. Certainly, one of the reasons was that not enough of the voters saw our productions to give us a fair chance to win. In retrospect, I believe I should have respectfully accepted the nominations but stated that, if I won, I would decline the award.
2. Another reason is that I have unpleasant memories of the degeneration of the Denver Drama Critics Circle awards (which ungracefully ended in 2000) into a spectacle that was mean-spirited and, I believe, divisive. The presentation ceremony had become bloated and ill-becoming of a modest theater community such as ours. It was a parody of the Oscars and, I believe, brought out the worst in everyone who attended, including the emcee.
It seemed to me that the Henrys took over where the DDCC awards left off, and I wanted nothing to do with them. Having said that, if Germinal actors other than me had been nominated for awards, I could not have withdrawn their nominations. That would have been arrogant of me and insulting to them.
3. The third reason is one of perception. I have tried to honestly understand my own attitude toward awards, since it seems hypocritical to me and I don’t like viewing myself as a hypocrite. I have won a lot of awards in nearly 40 years in Denver theater. The awards I valued most came without warning-out of the blue, so to speak. Selfishly, I admit, I really hate any awards I perceive as a contest where there is a possibility of losing. Are contested awards great when you win and dreadful when you lose? Not really. Actually, they’re dreadful whether you win or lose. When I have won contested awards, at first I have felt a certain smug euphoria but, in truth, I’m very aware that those who “lost” really don’t think I deserved to win and this makes me feel bad. There is no victory in victory, so to speak. One of the reasons I love golf is because I can enjoy it without winning or losing. I can play against the course or against myself.
We in live theater have too much of losing. If we remain true to our artistic vision, we are in a very risky business. Most of us are cockeyed optimists and idealists. We do our level best to cast each show with actors who will justify our faith in them, nail the part and amaze us with intelligence and emotional vitality. When they fail to do that, we lose. We spend hundreds of hours rehearsing plays that we expect critics to appreciate. When they don’t appreciate them and pan us, we lose. After the initial bad reviews, we expect that audience members will ignore the reviews and come to the show anyway. When they don’t, we lose. We open each show expecting it to make money so we can pay for our next flop. When it doesn’t make enough money, we lose.
In short, I believe that the “nomination” system is at the core of the problem, both with the Henrys and also the Denver Post Ovation Awards, and I would prefer to see simple “achievement” awards in which there were no losers, just winners. I wish only to win. If someone wants to offer me an award without someone else losing that award, I will accept. If someone nominates me for an award, I will consider the benefit of the nomination to my organization and, reluctantly and hypocritically, ballyhoo the fact that I “lost” if I think it will put fannies in seats.
These are my feelings as of July 16, 2008.
Ed Baierlein, Germinal Stage-Denver
Mr. Moore,
We have a system similar to the one you pose here in Texas where a minimum of judges are required to attend plays (we have category judges, and judges may be from the community of theater or beyond and go through mandatory training).
There is no reason to have only eight scorecards. Ask someone in statistics to run your numbers and throw out the statistical outliers (two people judged 100, 20 people judged between 75-95 and three people judged a 2–meanies). There is a statistically equal number for eight ballots versus, say, 100 ballots.
Our scorecards are filled out by the companies (they decide if they are to be considered drama, musical, etc. and whom is in each category).
If our judge liaison gets feedback that the ballot is not correct (“Side Show” is not a comedy, for instance), they contact the company to change.
The judge liaison reviews how many ballots are being turned in during production from the accountant who receives them. If the minimum judge number have not attended, he sends out a reminder that we need to review the play.
There is no perfect system, but we all try to get as close as possible every year.
Always look forward to reading your pages & keeping up with the Denver news!
Eva, San Antonio/Houston, Texas
John,
I have to hand it to you. You’ve thought it through pretty thoroughly. I think that your plan would definitely make things a little more fair. I, too, had noticed how few companies actually took awards home this year.
It’s never going to be a fully equitable process, I know, but, if CTG gets on board with your plan (and, as a member, I say we should), I think it will be a better representation of the quality of theatre in this town.
Brady Darnell
Hey,
As a member of a smaller company – and a board member of the CTG – I would like to agree that Johnny is on to something, and I think we can make some positive changes.
Pat Payne, executive producer, Spotlight Theatre
John,
I’d be interested to know how the contest would work . . . and how the new citizen judges might be trained to ensure some kind of predictable standard.
Perhaps we can learn a little something from our old friend the SAT. In order to grade SAT essays, a large group of graders sit in the same room and read together. Each and every essay is seen by two sets of trained eyes (and by trained, I mean that they have been instructed on what the test writers want each mark to mean – that way, a score of 5 means the same thing no matter who gives it . . . at least in theory). Sounds a lot like your plan, so far . . .
The kicker comes in when two people read an essay and don’t come up with the same score — then the essay goes to a table leader for a third and final read.
So, what if the professional (critic) voters for the Henry Awards got to cast their own votes and play the role of a table-leader at the same time?
Here’s how: Amateur voters must attend all performances in pairs – a simple sign-up sheet will do the trick. They see the show, make their marks and turn them in. But the ballots are not sealed. If the marks between two judges vary by too wide a margin (10 percent? 20 percent?), then the scores are passed on to a random “table leader,” like yourself, for final review. You check out both scores, and in instances where the difference is too broad you make revisions based on what you understand the standard of the CTG to be.
From that point on we return to the plan as you’ve outlined it in your article.
Just thinking about it makes me pine for the Denver theater community. We’ve got a special group of artists and a special night to celebrate their work. Even if it’s not perfect, it looks pretty good to me sitting where I am today.
Chris Boeckx, Thailand
John,
I just wanted to thank you for your column this week. I think you made some excellent points and I hope that we can make the Henry’s even better and bigger in the future. Thank you again!
Deb Flomberg
NOTE: The Post also was copied on this letter from Colorado Theatre Guild president T. David Rutherford to his member companies:
I want to take a moment and thank everyone who participated in the recent Henry Awards especially our sponsors, The Denver Foundation, The Denver Center Theatre Company, Actors Equity Association and Listen Productions. This was the most successful Henry’s program in the Guild’s history. Thank you also to our membership and the Guild member organizations. You are the Colorado Theatre Guild.
After such a successful and heart warming evening it’s easy to sit back, relax and wait for next year. However, judging from the content of my inbox we can’t relax quite yet. The major issue before us is quite simply this. Even though our pool of professional judges does a quite admirable job, they cannot see all of the shows that are technically eligible for the Henry Awards. Therefore only a fraction of the 150 or more shows that were eligible were reviewed or even seen by the judges. The board has been discussing this issue for some time even before John Moore’s recent column in the Denver Post.
I want you to know that the board is striving to answer these concerns. The CTG board has formed a group to develop a plan to address these concerns and make recommendations for changes to the rules and judging policies for next years Henry Awards. Additionally we are studying other awards programs nationally and their rules and policies.
If you are interested in participating in this discussion I invite to you be a part of the committee. Please contact me directly if you are interested.
Sincerely,
T David Rutherford, President, Colorado Theatre Guild
