under rehearsed

Hi Craig - You are probably right. Anyway Na, Craig, Jeff et al, please accept my sincere and heartfelt apologies for having strayed so far and boringly from the topic. It reminds me of that part in Catcher In The Rye where the class had to yell "digress" at the speaker when he swerves from the point...hang on a minute I just have some goats I have to go deal with... Right I'm back. Joe I think the six week rehearsal is fairly generous these days, I believe a lot of factors come into play when planning rehearsals, and sadly money is the most important one. If the company is unfunded, if the show is touring, if you have hired a "name", if the script has been commissioned or is currently a hit as well as your expected returns are all things that will have an effect on how long you can afford to be in rehearsal and I think these things have seriously affected the calibre of professional theatre in this country. However - I think I may be digressing again - please feel free to yell "DIGRESS" at me. To get back to the original post (finally they all sighed) I don't think it is fair to use terms like "lazy actor" or "second rate" I never met anyone in amateur theatre who did not want to do their best, but I think it comes down to varying standards and levels of expectation and skill. As I said earlier I believe the director to be ultimately responsible for scheduling and ensuring everybody is prepared but sometimes life just happens in a way that no director or committee could possibly control. And while it may be disappointing to see good actors not performing to their potential, we generally do not know the back story and must (and I think most audiences of community theatre do) make allowances. Do audiences really avoid some clubs because their shows are consistently poor? It's a long time since I sat on a committee so I don't have access to the numbers, but I would be very surprised to hear this was true.