West Leigh debut

West Leigh is a neat little ground with covered areas on three sides. The north and south stands are terraces in the old sense with a narrow standing area on the east exposed to the climate as well. The western stand is divided by the players' entrance from the dressing rooms. The refreshment van, which did a roaring trade throughout the match, is to the north of this entrance patrolled by stewards, Also to the north is the seating area. Normally when I have been in the past this is where I have taken a seat to watch Pompey reserves play. Yesterday,however, I decided to stand in the southern half of the western stand. I like standing at football matches as it feels more natural and makes you feel more of a participant. There were a few hundred there and the eastern side was bathed in sunshine. I think I should have stood over there but I hadn't brought my sun specs or a peaked cap so would have ended up squinting into the sun. I had gone well wrapped up against the cold but appreciated the cup of tea and by stamping my feet kept the cold at bay. The star of the Anfield encounter, Rocky Baptiste, was playing and scored a fine header. The Hawks took the lead in the first half against a workmanlike and well organised Cambridge City. The Hawks' approach work was direct and they were especially good at set pieces. The two midfields were well matched but Cambridge City were more compact and worked the ball well through midfield. Typically once the Hawks had taken the lead in the first half, the visitors were quickly back in contention with an equalising goal. However Tony Taggart restored Havant's lead with a volley from a corner. There was a lot of polite passing the ball to each other in the opposition box for a considerable time before the winger belted it into the roof of the net. In the second half, just because I was stood in the Havant half, all the action seemed to be concentrated there. Cambridge City applied constant pressure and the Hawks relied upon break away attacks to thwart them. At times the Hawk defence seemed unduly stretched and Kevin Scriven, the Hawk goalkeeper, pulled off one fine save to prevent the visitors taking the lead. Later in the half the use of substitutes broke up the flow of the game, which still seemed largely in Cambridge's favour. At the end of the scoreless second half, the Hawks trudged off with the scoreline 2 -1 as it had been at half time.
I enjoyed the experience and the terrace banter. I then walked into Havant to meet up with the Best Beloved to go to the cinema and watch "No Country for Old Men". I loved the performances of Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem. I could strongly relate to the weary sheriff of the former. The film is intriguing and gripping. There is bloodshed and usually where the Javier Bardem character is, death follows. His character is almost hypnotic and certainly when he is on the screen you can't take your eyes off him. "Fargo" is still my favourite Coen brothers' movie but "No Country for Old Men" shows the brothers at the height of their powers.
After the film we came back to the Aroma Chinese restaurant in Havant to eat. All of this is a prelude to admitting I missed the Pompey game on "Match of the Day". I start down to watch it with good intentions but quite early in the proceedings my attention wandered and I woke up to find myself watching "Death Train" starring Pierce Brosnan being rescued from the top of a moving train by helicopter. I retired to bed and am up early this morning, writing this blog, before settling down to watch the early morning edition of "Match of the Day". Later today, after rehearsal for "Attempts On Her Life" ( Natty Chap has a separate blog for the production), I hope to watch England Rugby team avenge their terrible showing in the second half against Wales by defeating the Italians thoroughly.

On Thursday the Bench selected plays for its July and September slots 2008. Directors have to pitch their plays to the gathered company on two Club Nights. On the second occasion the membership votes and the winning choice becomes the next bEnch production. It is very democratic and a lot can be said for the system, which I suspect is quite unique. The July slot is a double production of two plays in repertory, the eight performances are alternated with one play one night and the other the next. The two plays are very new, one by Philip Ridley whose title I can't remember and "Crave" by Sarah Kane. The Ridley is being directed by Martin McBride, his debut as a Bench director. The Kane is in the hands of Damon Wakelin, who is also directing "Wind in the Willows" in December for the Bench. "Home" by David Storey and directed by John Batstone was selected for the September slot. I voted positively for the September slot as there could be a part in the Storey play for me and I also took John's point that Storey is a notable omission from the bench playlist. I didn't vote as positively for the proposal for the JUly slot and if you had asked me on the night I am not sure I could have explained why. Upon reflection however I have come to an interesting conclusion. I approve of the two directors, there could be parts in the plays for me (this is always an important factor as far as I am concerned), and we should certainly include a Sarah Kane as well as David Storey amongst the Bench playlist. I love the democratic voting system and the fact that directors have to persuade the company to slect the production they are offering. It is not the directors' fault if only one production is offered so the company doesn't have a choice and sometimes the company has even rejected the one choice if the director has failed to persuade them. The balance of a season can be surprisingly good even when chosen using this method of selection. However on this occasion I feel the season has become a little skewed. It seems to me that all the plays chosen this season have a tough task ahead of them selling to the Backbenchers, never mind to the general public. I think this is probably a worthwhile task but one drawback of the Bench system is that each production team led by the producer and the director has to taken on the responsibility for their own play. I am sure the Bench Executive have got a lot of things on their agenda such as the need for rehearsal space and I know that individual members of the Executive Committee are engaged with individual productions quite intensively. I don't want to go back to a syatem whereby a committee selects the plays either. However I do think the Executive Committee ought to have a more pro-active role in the play selection process. The Artistic Panel supports and encourages directors to put forward plays. They are very helpful in helping directors to draw up production teams and get the productions mounted. Otherwise there is a danger that each play is too insular and that each director picks up the baton of full repsonsibility while the play is in production. The AGM is the only time the Bench reviews the finances of the season and not always in great detail. Sometimes there is some analysis of the fluctuations in audience figures and membership numbers. However this is always after the event and I am not sure that lessons are learned clearly enough. It seems to me that the Executive Committee or at least the officers should be part of the play selection process more actively as officers rather than just as members. The plays on offer should be looked at more dispassionately. It is no good getting to the end of the season and saying the finances have suffered because of the choice of plays. It should be possible to factor in some sort of financial statement of how we are doing right now before we make our choices. Also the demographics of the Bench could be monitored. I know us older hands have had a good crack of the whip in recent seasons and perhaps at the expense of other sections such as younger women. However it is no one's fault if that is what directors put forward and perhaps it is true that only older directors have the time to step up to the mark. I am not sure what this demographic would take but a statistical analysis of the parts would be a step forward. In the last season or the last five plays we have needed so many men of this age range, so many women of this age range etc. I am concerned that when "Bronte" was being cast, there wasn't a range of men to choose from. There were in fact too many women and some had to be disappointed. Now the Bench has also been unique in the past that the number of men has reflected more closely the number of men required in plays. Plays are still written largely with a male orientation. One of the reasons I didn't put forward "Hamlet" was the fact that I could cast the main male parts reasonably easily but would then need to scratch around to find men willing and able to walk on let alone actors rather than spear carriers. The Bench has a large scale production in "The Wind in the Willows" coming up in December 2008 which will need a lot of people. That particular production could cast across gender obviously but it needs to be borne in mind that we are going to need to expand our membership considerably to take it on board. We shouldn't just leave it to the director of thta particular show, Damon in this case, to not only direct the show but also to expand the membership rapidly to do it. The company should be gently but firmly reminded that casting small cast plays in the run up to a large scale production might have an effect upon the membership, who can't always be persuaded that they will be used in a future production a few months off. I said "might" in that last sentence and the study of demographics over recent seasons would show whther this effect is more likely or not. It could only be in the paranoid mind of this writer. However it is too much to leave it to chance that some one will ask this question of a director during a pitch of his or her play. And, again, why should the director have to answer this question, it should be a question fielded by the Executive Committee with their dispassionate overview. It could be that the Executive Committee and the officers become too officious in their duties and actually put directors off but that is a danger that can be tackled before it arises. However there is too much reliance on solo directors carrying the can for the whole company when a production is being mounted. Too much laissex faire is as bad as too little.