Seano Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Ref. not being able to work out the point about micing up nippers I am sure you know exactly what was meant Seano. Who knows what nippers may say to one another? And of course the worry of paedophilia is endemic amongst parents, which is exactly why we have chaperones on all the musicals/dramas with nippers in the cast. No, I really genuinely don't have the foggiest idea what you're on about. How on earth could a sound op overhearing a child's conversation be a 'child protection' issue?And no, while it is a part of their function, that is very much not "why we have chaperones". Utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjones2000 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I'm not sure about the whole idea of child protection regarding PFL'ing etc. (so please don't shoot me down too much!), but I think it's not a child protection issue normally, but it could be misinterpreted as an issue by someone who is a little over-protective, especially in the suing and compensation culture at the moment, as after-all (if you look at the whole picture from a non-technical person who doesn't understand why you do it) it is effectively 'spying' (can't think of a better word) on the child. In this case, I think it is important to let them (and parents) know and agree that everything they say can be potentially heard by the technician whilst PFL'ing, but also to let them know why you do it (not in detail), so that they don't think it is for the sake of being intrusive. And anyway, the whole idea of being CRB checked before being able to work with kids surely 'protects' the technician against this (or am I completely off the hook?)? I may be totally wrong (in which case someone please correct me), but this is just my view on it! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramdram Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Following the OT split a little further then I for one would be interested to learn your view on the chaparone issue Seano. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cedd Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I think this topic may soon be deserving of its' own thread. If the mods would be so kind? It's an important one and I'd be interested to hear other people's views on it. I'd never lie or tell the cast that I couldn't hear them backstage, but I still think telling them to watch what they say offstage, or taking/turning mics off during toilet trips is excessive and counter productive. If you can make it work and don't believe it's an issue, then that's fine, it mitigates a risk. I don't think there's a lot more I can say on the issue though, I've made all the points I'd like to make I think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilary Watts Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I'm with Cedd and Seano on this one. If as a sound op you are asked whether you can hear actors even when they are not onstage then obviously the answer is 'yes in theory' (but pointing out, as Cedd does, that in practice it probably won't be the case) . But why go out of your way to make an issue of it? Public warnings in advance would not assist you either from a legal or moral point of view if you were consciously listening in to something not intended for your ears, whatever your motives. Most actors will know that once they are wearing a mic they can be overheard, but rely on the tact and discretion of the sound op not to mention it and not to listen in on private conversations or visits to the toilet. If I'm onstage and wearing a mic I don't expect the sound op to give me any 'warning'; yet even if (s)he did give me a prior 'warning' I think I could rightly feel aggrieved if the sound op used it for the purposes of eavesdropping (as opposed to accidentally overhearing a fragment of conversation not intended for him/her). Nor do I give any warning if I am the sound op – and yet there have been times when I've pressed the PFL button before the actor appears onstage just to make sure that the mic is picking up ambient sound and then cancelled it very quickly when it was obvious that something was going on that was not intended for my ears. It's a bit like a wardrobe person warning the cast that (s)he will see how sweaty and unattractive they are under their fancy costumes or a member of the backstage crew warning the cast of a children's show that (s)he can listen to all their conversations in the wings; both statements may be literally true but normally in society we rely on the unspoken convention that we don't mention these things and I don't see why a theatre should be any different. Finally, where children are involved, it's not a child protection issue - it's just a matter of the sound op treating children and adults with the same degree of respect and tact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbsy Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Indeed. I don't make a big deal of being able to PFL their mics but I tend to mention it in the same pre-tech-rehearsal speech I give about not touching the buttons, seeing the A2 for mic swaps, being quiet after exits, etc. As Hilary Watts says, it's simply showing the same degree of respect for the actors as you'd like them to show you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramdram Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Which is why I mention to the cast, specifically, that there is no privacy, at all, when on a radio mic. Perhaps I should have added, because it is normal practice for our "main" venue, (not a VH in this instance) is that we have more than one sound op involved in the process leading up to the start of the show; as in one of us will act as mic runner as required, and we all know that snags can arise. We use PMR (not ideal but it's what we've got) to talk to the sound box when sorting a mic. In addition to ourselves we actively encourage some of the youngsters, sixteen and over, who show an interest to tag along to see how it's done. First by changing the batteries, then handing out the kit to the specific actor, then doing the sound check. And on occasion, if asked, the signal path from rx to desk and amp and how to set levels and so on. All this is under supervision of course. It follows that on occasion, if one of us, older bods, has to attend to a mic problem in a dressing room or backstage we get the "trainee" to stay in the box and listen to the channel. (Quick aside...we find it absolutely indispensable to have the nippers in the box to sit on the LX desk too. We don't let them climb ladders at all, so I do the focus thing while they bring up the channels or even lanterns as asked. Saves a huge amount of time, not to mention wear and tear on me, what with having to trudge from desk to ladder a few dozen times.) Now youngsters, being youngsters, have an insatiable curiosity about their peers. Anyone who has a teenager will know that at some time after school facebook will be their sole interest. Therefore I know, without a shadow of doubt, that all the radio mic channels will be "checked for quality". From the various other comments I can see that some folk are theatre pros and may have little or no experience of amdram and the notion of eavesdropping is truly alien to them. Amdram does not always follow pro theatre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbsy Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I'd say this is one area where pro theatre (and TV, film, etc.) aren't all that different from Amdram. Look at the list of performers and politicians who have got into trouble when they've been caught being indiscreet while wearing a radio mic. The only difference is that you probably won't be able to sell the amdram indiscretion for as much as you could Britney Spears or Gordon Brown.... What I've heard on PFL stays on PFL (with the exception of the actress I caught asking somebody if "they think I should tell that sound guy I dropped his little box thingy in the toilet". THAT got reported, if only for the insurance claim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramdram Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 But there again Bobbsy, the fact that professionals DID eavesdrop (or check the tapes later) shows that the mic channels are listened to, by some individuals, and exploited. From what we read in the media it now seems as if the notion of eavesdropping is regarded as acceptable, possibly essential even, in some circles. Plus, as you said yourself, you overheard the conversation apropos the lavatorial immersion of the little box thingy...and now that story is all over the planet. You won't be the first to have overheard similar...and now folk will be in a quandry as to recounting their experiences yet knowing if they did then it would demonstrate that the listening in was not your unique experience... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseweasel Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 http://lcstudentwiki.wikispaces.com/file/view/Hippo-Yawn.jpg/99484403/Hippo-Yawn.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.