I must admit that when I hear the words ‘youth’ and ‘theatre’ combined I don’t immediately jump at the chance to see it. Images spring into my headof Eastenders-style issues and limited acting skills, an unwelcome return to GCSE drama; or worthwhile work that’s fantastic for those involved but not something that will change the theatrical world. Yet at a script meeting last night the phrase did crop up. Our show involves ‘teenage issues’ and was first produced with a cast of under 25s. It was also created with funding specifically for young people. So does this make our show youth theatre? And therefore does that make me a bit of a hypocrite who would avoid my own show?

The reason this issue came up was the age of our actors, and because re-staging this show with the same cast would mean having young people playing parents. My first reaction was that would be fine; I watched a fantastic show recently that had a 20-something playing a very believable 60-year-old. At the back of my mind I was aware of her age, but as long as the acting is convincing and it suits the tone of the show, as an audience member I think  I can believe anything. After all, theatre is about creating worlds, not necessarily mirroring them. The other group members, however, felt that to professionalise our work and distance ourselves from being a ‘youth group’, we would need to consider actors closer to the characters’ ages. And I completely see their point: for some people the age of the actors can effect the way they view the show.

I recently went to see The Cherry Orchard at The National with a friend who had seen another production by a young group of actors, and her experience was not a positive one. For her, the work of the young company had been both less convincing and less professional, nearly entirely due to their age. These actors were trained graduates from one of the worlds most respected drama schools, yet their clear youthfulness rendered them unable to embody the ageing characters. And because of this they seem more like an amateur, youth group despite being billed as professional. I wouldn’t want the age of the actors to affect the show like that.

But as a theatre company, the question are we a professional, youth or even an amateur production is also important on a funding level. There are different avenues and options for each one. Youth Theatre comes with the added bonus of education funding, whilst there are more funding bodies than you would think available to amateur groups. Perhaps it’s a big society thing…

So what defines your show when you are working on low budgets with a young cast? We would be mad to do it for the money. My gut instinct is to most definitely aim for professional, but the line between professional and amateur can sometimes seem blurred. The definition of amateur can be someone who engages in a pursuit for pleasure not financial benefit or someone who is never been paid for that activity. I am sure many of you can relate to this, particularly those who are currently interning away at a financial loss. The better known and more negative definition is a person who is unskilled in a particular activity. This may refer to Home Counties amateur groups full of 60-somethings who believe that their versions of Shakespeare are top quality and they should have been actors. But I know this doesn’t refer to our show. Just to avoid any confusion, though, I think I will go with professional, just in case.

Image by Pier Mario