TheatreFace
Putting a Face on Theatre
Safety First?
I recently became involved in a conversation about safety and common construction practices, and I thought the salient points might be worth discussing. I won’t go into the details of the particular conversation (they aren’t necessarily important) but the crux of the matter was this: how important is “safety” as a responsibility of a technical director?
This seems like a no-brainer, right? We all want to be safe; no one wants to get hurt, or see anyone else get hurt. But what exactly do we mean by safe? And what is the correct balance amongst the (sometimes competing) priorities of aesthetic, time limitations, and financial concerns? And what is the technical director’s responsibility vis a vis these priorities?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that most technical directors “strongly suggest” that people where glasses and ear protection in their shops. (I bet that the emphasis is almost always on eyewear over earwear, however.) Many probably encourage the use of ventilators when working with materials like extruded (or expanded) polystyrene foam or medium density fiberboard. Some, I’m sure, make a lot of noise about proper use of outriggers on personnel lifts, and maybe some even discuss the use of hard hats on stage when work is being done over head. These are all important safe practices (and in most cases are legal requirements). And, thankfully, these practices have become more common in the theatre workplace over the last 15 years. (Good heavens—have I really been at this for 15 years already!?)
Unfortunately, however, ours is a business that can be fairly myopic: we tend to believe (or want to believe) that personal sacrifice is an important aspect of making “good art:” although no art is worth someone’s life or limbs, we often allow ourselves to take—or put others into a situation to knowingly or unknowingly take—serious safety risks for “the sake of the art.” We also tend to perpetuate many practices and methods because “they’ve always worked”; just because a method or process has worked in the past—even many times in the past—doesn’t mean that it is safe or legal. And, often, this shortsightedness comes from an institutionalized emphasis on getting as much done as possible on limited resources.
What is the technical director’s responsibility regarding safety within the milieu of competing priorities? The old adage is accurate: “safety comes first.” In my opinion, the buck stops at the technical director—the TD needs to know what is safe and what isn’t, and to make sure that what is happening fits easily in the former category. But that’s easy to say, harder to do, for many reasons, not the least of which because there are an incredibly large number of safety codes and regulations to be aware of. Quick: how close can that wagon stage left get to the company switch before you are in violation of electrical code? Quickly, now: how much spacing between rows of folding seats in a flexible theatre need to be, if there’s only one aisle leading to them, and there are 30 seats? You know this one: how far off the ground can a platform get before you need to provide for railings or fall arrest systems?
No one can keep all that information in their heads. (Well, maybe Erich Friend can.) But it is our responsibility as technical directors to know a) what issues raise safety and safety code questions, and b) where to look for the answers to those questions.
A more insidious reason toeing the safety and safety codes line can be difficult is institutional inertia and pressure from “up top;” When your boss is pressuring you to do things a certain way that you know is unsafe, either because “we’ve always done it that way,” or, worse yet, “it looks/sounds/works better that way,” a technical director can find themselves in a serious bind. Some simply cave, hoping nothing will go wrong (or make sure they’ve put their disagreement with the decision on paper in an act of “CYA”). Others dig their heels in and insist that whatever is being asked for cannot happen. Neither approach is a very good one, frankly, and only results in people being put in danger; or potentially a technical director being fired and then people being put in danger; or an what could have been an incredibly compelling theatrical event is made less so because an effect/moment/device/element has been cut out of hand.
The difficult task the technical director faces when it comes to safety is finding a way to maintain good, safe practices, ensure the health and welfare of everyone involved, and present compelling events that fulfill the visions of the artists they are working with. Safety must always come first, certainly, but it doesn’t trump art; rather, it should inform the development of an artistic vision, as a technical director and set designer/director/crazy-fool-who-wants-what? become partners in realizing a particular idea, so that the theatrical event can be fulfilled while everyone stays safe.
Comment
-
Comment by Ashleigh Poteat 11 hours ago -
I agree with what you've both said, but I guess my main point was that the culture of "that's the shop's job, that's the shop's fault" is the one I'm trying to point out and discuss.
I think that too many people on the production team will just shove issues - and flying is a great example - at the TD and, when it becomes a safety issue, it is then the TD's fault.
I think that instead of assuming that safety is ONLY in the purview of the TD, more production personnel need to be aware and work together to enfore a safe working environment.
Slightly off topic, but I've been compiling research on sustainability practices in the theatre. One facet of that is awareness of products and chemicals used - and our old friends the MSDS. I found that the only people in most theatres who read, or even slightly comprehended these, were the TDs. Costume shop personnel could SOMETIMES say that they existed, but they hadn't read them, and certainly didn't understand the point. It was often said - that's the TD's thing.
So, I guess what I'm saying, is that it's NOT the TD's thing. Whether it be MSDS, flying, hard hats, safety glasses. This IS a collaborative effort. I think we all need to step up our game.
- Comment by Joseph Donovan 14 hours ago
-
I agree with Rich. I haven't read the book (although I just checked it out on Amazon, looks pretty good!) but I always try to make it clear to my designers that my job isn't to say "No" and, as Ashleigh said, it's not my art. My job is to help the director and designers to make "their" art.
So they need to understand I am not saying no, I am saying that we need to think of a solution that will get this done safely with the resources I have. To do that there may have to be compromise from everyone. I may need to think of cheaper or quicker ways to do other things for the show so I can put more resources into this thing "crazy-fool" wants. Crazy-Fool may have to cut some where else to make this happen if it is a priority. But they (designer, director, etc) need to understand that I am on their side. Once we are all on the same page about that it always seems to be much easier to have a conversation about why I don't feel comfortable doing this.
A good is example is I won't fly people. I know rigging, I'll fly any piece of scenery you want but I'm not hooking up a person and sending them in the air. I don't have the training to do it. When it comes up I don't tell them no, I tell them I am not able to do it. If they want to hire Foy, ZFX, etc then I will gladly (and have) get the quote, work with the company on any info they need, do everything they need me to as TD. I'm not opposed to flying people but in this case, the resource I don't feel I have is knowledge. If they give me the other resources (in this case money) to make it happen we can do it.
-
Comment by Rich Dionne 1 day ago -
Ashleigh,
Unfortunately, the relationship between a TD and a designer can often be a tense and antagonistic one. The average TD is not helped in this be the many, many, curmudgeonly, cranky, apathetic, and/or oppositional TDs out there. (There's a whole blog post about the things that likely lead to those personalities, which often come from defensiveness.) after meeting with opposition many times, it's easy for some designers to assume that any word from a TD that suggests doing something in a different way than thy indicated is antagonisic in nature. And, of course this will dictate how they respond, which will likely elicit an antagonist response, perpetuating the whole problem.
So what do you do? I think you have to approach every situation focused on the problem: what is the effect we're looking to create, and how do we create it within the limitations of resources and safety requirements we are working with? You have to do your best to put aside all o the acrimony, defensiveness, and anger--even if it feels justified, and continue to focus on the problem.
I think every technical director should read "Getting to Yes," a book that talks about finding collaborative answers to difficult--ssometimes emotionally-charged--challenges. I discusses these issues in detail.
I've found that as long as you continue to put emphhasis on the shared goal--creating the best possible production--eventually, cooler and wiser heads prevail.
-
Comment by Ashleigh Poteat 1 day ago
-
I think another element to this, which you hinted at with your "set designer/director/crazy-fool-who-wants-what" is that the relationship between the Technical Director and the other designers (and sometimes the director) can rapidly become an antagonistic one.
Those people only hear the TD saying "No" and completely miss the reasons WHY and often the suggestions for alternatives.
While I agree that the buck stops with the TD, I think that the workplace puts an unfair, and rather unrealistic, pressure on the TD to handle the situations where safety vs. art come into play.
Yes, it's important for TD's to know safety regs, but if designers and directors had as much respect and concern for safety as a TD should, then many arguments - and situations of CYA and even firing - could be avoided.
I think this all plays into a larger conflict between the "artists" and the people who make that art happen. (And by no means am I saying that technical design is not, in fact design, because it IS. But the common perception is that TDs aren't artists and only really exist to make life harder).
This sort of goes back to what you said about things being done the same way, because they had before, and because it had worked before. Well, the relationship between the shop and the designers has always been a rather tense one, and yes, the show goes up and it looks fantastic (let us hope) and it is more or less safe (often times much less than a TD would like). But is THAT a state we want to continue in?
Are there ways that we could examine the process and relationships to find a better working environment that allows everyone to positively contribute? And be safe?
© 2011 Created by Jacob Coakley.
You need to be a member of TheatreFace to add comments!
Join TheatreFace