Smoking in Theatre

[Jodi.m]

My name is Jodi and I am currently studying for a BA (Hons) in Professional Production Skills at Guildford School of Acting. I am working on my dissertation which is an exploration into the effects the smoking ban has had on the theatre industry.To aid my study I have posted two polls above and would be grateful if you would answer them.

Thanks

Jodi

[paulears]

I started to fill it in, but I'm confused. I didn't think the smoking ban had had an impact, then Q2 said

With the ever-changing rules and regulations of the theatre industry, do you think that smoking in theatre will be banned in the future?

 

Q1 asks about the smoking ban, then question 2 asks if it will be banned?

 

I don't understand what you mean?

[Adam L F]

I'm also a little confused, are you talking about actors smoking on stage in your final question, or technicians having a cheeky one during the interval? If so, I'm guilty of the second!

[Jodi.m]

It is about actors smoking on stage !

 

paulears - The smoking ban is the one that it set on all enclosed public places in england but theatres have an exemption from the ban. The second question is about wether smoking in theatre will become banned completely.

[gareth]

In England, the smoking ban hasn't had an effect on the theatre business because, as you say, there's an exemption for theatrical performances. In Wales, where I work, there's no such exemption and all smoking in theatrical performances is a complete non-starter. I don't really understand what you're looking to achieve with this poll - seems a bit simplistic, considering it's research for a dissertation for an undergraduate honours degree ...

[Albatross]

In Oz, we've had a smoking indoors/workplaces ban for many years now. It's not affected things long term through there was a lot of resistance early on.

Where there's smoking on stage as part of a performance we have one of 2 scenarios.

Real cigarettes, but it's very rare, with notice given and signs posted at entrances to the effect of 'performance contains cigarettes smoking'.

Fake/prop cigarettes, which is more common, but again signs with 'performance contains simulated smoking'.

 

It's extremely rare to see it as part of a performance at all though !

[ramdram]

But what is smoking? Smoking implies having a lit fag and doing the inhalation thing...then the exhalation thing...and then the smoke making a beeline for everyone else's lungs...and not triggering the smoke detectors, possibly.

 

If no-one inhaled is it a case of lighting a fag or just lighting a tube of tobacco leaves?

 

I have toured with the Browning Version, as an example, and the script includes smoking business as part of the plot. Our actors simply lit up, did not inhale (neither of them cared for fags at all anyway) and held them at arms length and after a few seconds, rpt seconds, stubbed them out. Nobody in the audience complained or even remotely considered storming out in protest...so presumably nobody cared enough to bother.

 

Our stage crew includes a serving police officer and his partner ditto. They certainly felt no overwhelming urge to arrest anyone and none of the rest of us took exception either.

 

Some visiting companies sometimes use the two matches taped together for the fag effect, so, in other words a ban would have no effect at all. The "theatre" has been simulating smoking for decades.

[Rachel-Lou]

I have seen productions in Wales with smoking in them since the smoking ban, so I don't really understand comments about it being a non starter, if a production with smoking in it tours into Wales then of course smoking will still happen in it.

I also think comments about this poll being simplistic are unnecessary, this is clearly a simple question to gain a wider perspective, obviously along with this poll there will be larger, more complex questionnaires sent out to industry professionals

[Gerry]

.. this is clearly a simple question to gain a wider perspective,..

Sorry but I don't find it a simple question.

Is the poster asking about smoking on stage as part of the performance or smoking inside the building?

Cheers

Gerry

[Jodi.m]

The question is about smoking as part of a performance.

[paulears]

Jodi - I'll try to explain what happened. Were often get people asking questions to use for their dissertations. Yours, perhaps because you only wanted specific info was considerably shorter than the usual umpteen page survey monkey things we get - but I think the thing that threw us - me included - was that we misunderstood the question, which suggests that the questions were a little er, flawed? You knew what we meant, but the fact that some people may have answered the wrong interpretation of the question, and not asked, as I did, suggests that the data you collected might be unreliable - and something your supervisor would haul you up for.

 

I realise you perhaps think we were unfair, but I can assure you it wouldn't be personal - it was just honest comment. From our perspective, we had two quite strange questions, with no context to their framing - and they do seem a bit er, 'odd'.

 

People have already told you the smoking ban has had an impact. My own experience in venues here and in Northern Ireland is that it has had no impact whatsoever. Unlike pubs, people have never been able to smoke in the for and auditorium areas for quite a long time - many venues banned smoking inside before the law required it. Your second question didn't mention 'on stage', which is an omission, but on a pure numbers basis, smoking as part of the performance is not very common, percentage of productions wise, and many simply removed cigarettes from the script, others, where the smoking is implicit in the script and removing it is impossible substituted fake smoking. Touring companies adjust their smoking scenes to comply with venue rules.

 

I've never seen it become a snag.

 

As for the putting you up to it question. I too wondered if you'd had this particular research given to you as some kind of 'penalty' - knowing that gathering primary data would be so subjective. For your data to have meaning, the source would seem important. If you ask 50 smokers, I bet you'd get different results than if you asked non-smokers. Perhaps for quite innocent reasons. As a non0-smoker, have I simply discounted any comments I have heard because I think it's trivial, where as a dedicated smoker would find these things very important. Sometimes we're very similar to your teachers - indeed many university staff and past students are members of this forum and even this topic!

 

We don't mean to cause any offence, but the performing arts world has far more blunt people in it than most other industries. People get asked questions and give what to them are honest answers.

 

Looking at the dissertations that have been aired on the BR in the past year in order to gain evidence, yours is quite unusual - that's all. I can see why people have raised eyebrows. From the limited info we have, we are seeing big flaws - and if your conclusions are based on this evidence, we don't see it as very accurate. I'm sure you have plenty of other sources who have better evidence, but you only gave us very brief, and confusing questions. Being honest, I'd have been pretty hard on any of my students who used those questions to produce evidence - sorry. I suspect that maybe you just didn't realise that we'd misunderstand, and therefore question your questions.

 

 

We try to be nice to new members - but deciding to just answer, potentially skewing your research isn't something we are good at. You got honest, but blunt answers.

 

Looking back, there is a sense of "is she serious, or pulling our legs?" when it's read back. I understand your sharp objections, but you don't know us and we don't know you - and communications went astray. As the person seeking the data, you need to consider what went wrong, and using us as an example, are you sure these questions asked elsewhere actually provided answers to the question you thought you asked?

 

Please don't be offended - it wasn't personal, and if you use some of the info you got perhaps you can see how smoking questions can generate abnormal responses if context is removed.

 

Best wishes with the research - although I doubt you will be able to produce an accurate conclusion, the available data seems so contrary!

Paul

 

EDIT

I just read the post made while typing. Is the first question also about having an impact on theatrical productions rather than the theatre industry. I was thinking FOH and the bars for q1, but just realised you may have meant having an impact on the staging and perhaps direction. More confused now.

[gareth]

I have seen productions in Wales with smoking in them since the smoking ban, so I don't really understand comments about it being a non starter, if a production with smoking in it tours into Wales then of course smoking will still happen in it.

 

No you haven't, and no it won't. Let me reiterate - I work in a theatre in Wales, which is directly affected by the smoking ban, and performances in Wales, whether they're produced in-house or visiting touring product, are NOT permitted to feature actors smoking on stage. You may have seen simulated smoking, maybe an electronic cigarette or perhaps some strange herbal concoction which somehow gets around the smoking ban (although I'm not aware of anything like that). But there's a blanket ban on smoking in ALL enclosed public spaces in Wales, including theatres, with no exemptions.

 

Gareth - This is a poll to generate opinions about smoking in theatre not to take a petty digs at soon to be graduate students. If you would like me to I will send you a copy of my dissertation when it is completed so you can see what I have achieved because you sound your worried about it.

 

It wasn't a petty dig, I was simply saying what I thought (after having answered the half of your poll which is relevant to me - no, don't thank me, it's no bother). The point I was trying to make is that, if you're looking to canvas opinion from the whole of the UK, the second question in your poll is of very limited use as Wales (and, I think I'm right in saying, Scotland) has already banned smoking on stage as part of a theatrical production. Good luck with your dissertation.

[kerry davies]

Hi Jodi, Rachel, welcome to BR and hope you gain from it. I was third to answer yes and yes as I live in Wales and work in England which means any stats derived will be less than relevant to your dissertation.

 

The main problem with the questions is that they are about change. Any change will and must have an "effect" therefore both must be answered truthfully as yes and you will be no further along. Jodi has asked closed questions that have one pre-ordained answer so any results will consist of either all yes's or false no's from those who failed to understand the question.

 

If the responses have indeed upset either of you then I would suggest you need to do some further research into whether this is actually the industry you think it is. Stress and pressure aren't exactly rare elements and neither is basic language and confrontation. Check out the profiles of those who have responded to this topic and you will see that they are experienced people and if these guys upset you, stay away. They are among the nicer ones!

[rossmck]

The point I was trying to make is that, if you're looking to canvas opinion from the whole of the UK, the second question in your poll is of very limited use as Wales (and, I think I'm right in saying, Scotland) has already banned smoking on stage as part of a theatrical production.

Just to clarify that one - yes, it's banned in Scotland - no exception for performance. This has caused a few quite notable disputes;

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1525827/Stage-ban-stubs-out-Churchill-cigar.html

 

 

 

 

 

[paulears]

Just expanding this a little - I suspect the smoking ban has had more effect on efficiency of staffing than from constraints on performance. The smoking areas are frequently away from everything else meaning that somebody in need of a quick fag break could, in the past, just sneak out, smoke and back - but now it has to be a proper break, and with transit times, they tend to be longer. I'm a non-smoker, but these smoking areas seem pretty horrible places too. Not theatre, but I'm aware of one large organisation near me who banned coffee breaks because the smokers were using them as excuses for extra breaks. So putting the kettle on, and having a drink while working was for some an excuse to visit the 'special area' and these breaks became extended. To solve the problem with upsetting the smokers, they just removed coffee breaks for everyone - and if you want a break, you come in 15 minutes early and have a 15 minute formal break instead. Smoking bans do have an impact as a general thing. I've not yet seen any impact on performance apart from the complaints about artistic freedom and reality, which as mentioned can be cured most times by fake cigarettes of some kind.

 

The friendly abuse we get in real crew rooms is pretty strong really in many venues, and sometimes I do wonder why the same thing doesn't happen on-line. Only recently we were talking about being nice - but it does seem that this is extended to not be negative or have contrary views, which I don't think is the same thing.

 

In this example, I suspect the best thing Jodi could do is print the topic and let the staff have a read and see what their opinion is - I suspect it could be useful information.