under rehearsed

I hope that the teeth I pulled out were soft and rubbery, I had no intention of causing any harm. I certainly see what you mean Jeff about how often the attitude is to cavalier. I think it's ok for people to do theatre just for the social aspects (they put the community into community theatre) but the frustration comes when some have the added goal of achieving a great and well put together show. A director I once worked with told me that any and all failings of a production are the responsibility of the director. I think that this is a good ideal to attain to for both actors and directors alike. Actors because it stops them from seizing responsibility that isn't theirs; too often actors go against the wishes of the Director because they don't trust them and think they know better. Actors can't worry about whether they look crap or not, they need to do what the director (who can actually tell whether they look crap) tells them. Directors because they need to take on the responsibility of their productions, and not blame others for things going wrong. As I said, this is just an idealistic approach, but I think it has some merit as it keeps us accountable to our responsibilities and therefore accountable to putting on good shows. In real life, however, we do all play a part in the strength, or lack there of, of a show we're in. The directors role in providing motivation and vision, as you aptly pointed out, is so important in bridging the gap between ideals and the real world where the buck has to stop with someone. That's why I think that the director (and those that hold him or her acountable, such as the company) has the ultimate responsibility to claim. ps. doing well Jeff, now with a two month old so pretty busy. yourself?