under rehearsed

Tue, 24 Aug 2010, 01:43 pm

Generally the standard of community theatre is excellent, each person pulls their weight and everyone has a good night, audience and cast together. However, recently, I have seen three shows which were well directed, had experienced actors and yet were struggling due to lack of rehearsal.

I have even seen a few veteran actors who do not seem to be tuned in – dare I even say disinterested? Possibly they think that they are there just to ‘fill in’, or capable of performing their part without any real effort.

Sadly, the result is that not only do they label themselves as second rate, but cause some amateur theatres to be constantly avoided by the public because ‘their shows are always very poor.’ It is very sad that the odd badly rehearsed show, or lazy actor, can put an unjustified bad label on future productions for that theatre or group for months to come.

To all those who bring my life so much pleasure, a very big thank you.

Thread (33 posts)

Threaded Flat

Gordon the OptomTue, 24 Aug 2010, 01:43 pm

To all those who bring my life so much pleasure, a very big thank you.

jeffhansenTue, 24 Aug 2010, 05:54 pm

Names, dammit Gordon. We

Names, dammit Gordon. We want names. Who's to blame in this situation? Is it the individual actor not pulling his/her weight? Maybe the actor was a late replacement. In that case, should the show be postponed? The buck must stop with the theatre committee as the producers of the show. How often is the committee actively tracking the progress of rehearsals, to ascertain the readiness of a show? Is the director telling the committee - "Everything is going to plan. It'll be alright on the night." When is is too late to postpone a show? Do you make the call a week out? Two days? Would we have the balls to cancel a show that just isn't going to come up to scratch, or do we let it go ahead and hope for the best? Cancelling means the loss of probably many thousands of dollars in the short term, with rights payed, and production costs outlayed. Not cancelling may mean the loss of many thousands in the long term, as the company gets the reputation of putting up shows that are below par. I trust Gordon's view, as he sees more Perth theatre than probably anyone else, and will recognise an underprepared show for what it is. Will the casual theatregoer notice the difference? Questions, questions. Anyone got the answers? Jeff (hoping I wasn't in one of these shows) Hansen www.meltheco.org.au

David HardieTue, 24 Aug 2010, 08:16 pm

It's Ok Jeff, I've never seen you under-rehearsed.

Mr Optom does, in a general sense, make a fair point. I dont think that it is the fault of individuals, but in the general sense, there is so much on that it is stretching the talent pool. Consequently, the the scenarios that GtO describes could be accurately applied to a number of situations over the previous few months. At the start of the year I was willing to lay odds that there would be productions in November that would struggle to find a cast. I'm sad to say that this has come true. I don't think that this is anyone's fault, but I will say that companies either need to think through their programming or even better, start thinking about ways to actually develop talent within the clubs in a way that goes beyond putting on more shows.

Tom CampWed, 25 Aug 2010, 07:49 am

I think you hit it on the

I think you hit it on the head later. Getting a wider range of people down to audition is the only real way to stop the drain. You have to engage the theatre community as a whole though. I don't think an actor should tie themselves solely to one community theatre group. It will allow them to inject there ideas into new groups and vice versa. Thus we wouldn't have to worry about groups going stale with similar ideas every show. BAck to the main point though, I think it's a shame indeed. Surely the director is to blame here? He is the one who can call more rehearsals or get on the actors backs and demand they rehearse more at home. Whilst the actor should be able to work it out for themselves if they can't the director must step up to the plate. It's not a Wolf, It's an Alaskan Malamute.

LabrugWed, 25 Aug 2010, 09:44 am

All nice...

"Surely the director is to blame here? He is the one who can call more rehearsals or get on the actors backs and demand they rehearse more at home."

Maybe in Professional Theatre, sure. The actors are being PAID for it and are under (most often) some form of contractual aggreement.

Community Theatre ain't the same boat. A director has to treat his cast carefully. Start insisting on additional rehearsals (I have a Full-time Job, Family, Committee Meeting, and frankly I don't want to) and you take pot luck that anyone will turn up. Similarly with additional "home-work".

It's only community theatre and the possability of someone "walking out" is very real, and if that happens, you are in a real bind and will truly be under-rehearsed if you happen to find a replacement or even take on the role yourself.. I have no idea of the real figures but I would guesstimate that the amount of 'Walk-outs' in professional theatre are substantially, massively less than community yet far more dramatic. The reality is that the commitment actors have to a Am Theatre show is based purely on their desire to see it through and their ability to get on with the director.

Unless the cast share an enthusiasm or passion for what they are doing, a director may as well use is hot air to blow up balloons, and if they did share that enthusiasm, then the director shouldn't need to call additional work be done?

That is not to say that a director has no responsability and can try to find ways to "encourage" more from their cast. It just means that the boundaries are very close and rather thin. Push to far and it will burst.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins

Looking for an Agent? Read this first!!

Tom CampThu, 26 Aug 2010, 12:33 pm

Fair enough. I suppose then

Fair enough. I suppose then that directors here would always go the actor they know as opposed the actor they don't then. And if needs be too cast an outside actor then someone who has obviously worked harder will probably stand themselves in good stead for a role. Here again though the director (normally responsible for casting) must have a good judge of character. It does seem a seemingly simple task though for the actor to know enough to be able to tell whether more work is required. I wonder if it's a lack of time to develop, lack of knowledge or even just the fact they don't care then? It's not a Wolf, It's an Alaskan Malamute.

LabrugThu, 26 Aug 2010, 01:51 pm

Speaking for myself

Your comments have some measure of truth in that some director's WILL do this as matter of self-security (ie cast whom they know vs whom they don't) not all directors do. Speaking for myself, I always love giving new talent (both to myself and in general) who show potential at the auditions a chance at strong, even lead roles. This does occasionally back-fire, although only occasionally.

As for the cast... it is hard to say. I would say in the majority of cases it is a lack of confidence more-so than knowledge or care. Confidence in;

the direction they have been given,
their personal sense of preparation,
their familiarity with the script,
their co-actors,
the story,
their ability period,
etc.

This can be brought on by a array of reasons. In effect, it is a team effort and blame (if there is any to lay) should be equal across the board.

This is only my personal opinion of course. I am sure if you asked someone else you may just get a different response.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins

Looking for an Agent? Read this first!!

Theo MessengerThu, 26 Aug 2010, 02:36 pm

At odds with Jeff

I think that companies and directors need to assess wisely how much time it will take to pull a production together, and make sure everyone can meet that need before you begin. I think that the lack of rehearsal has got more to do with teams not achieving their goals fast enough and then running out of time. Some companies routinely have 6 week rehearsal seasons and some routinely have 12 week ones, and the final product often shows the latter in a more favourable light. Good prep means not having to request more rehearsals later and upset everyone. While I always hold your thoughts in high regard I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you Jeff. I've worked in the not-for-profit sector all of my professional life and I can testify to the fact that people who aren't paid work harder and are more committed than those who are. This is because they're profiting from something other than financial gain (loyalty, vision, attention, women, publicity, etc.) profits which, unlike wages, increase the more time you put in. Actual studies can be found that say just as much. Just as much in professional theatre as in community theatre will people walk out if their expectations aren't getting met and they feel they can get them met elsewhere (and of course, their character is such that they are happy to leave a project in the lurch). You're right to say that a demanding director will only alienate his or her cast/crew. Even if they don't walk out it's likely to strain a directors reputation and relationships. But it's entirely the Director's responsibility to ensure that: a) every member of the crew/cast has a common commitment to a common goal, b) that the need to meet that goal is being achieved, and c) that everyone has the expectation of themselves that they will fulfil that commitment. I have to take offence at the statement "It's only community theatre..." There's nothing 'only' about what we do. Community Theatre has the opportunity to create far grander productions than our so called 'professional' counterparts who are limited by the fact that they have to pay everyone, and that cast won't come to extra rehearsals unless they're being paid. We should all have the highest expectations of our work and the people we work with. I don't think that it's acceptable for anyone, paid or not, to walk out of a production beyond the first rehearsal or reading. Just my thoughts and opinion. Sincerely Theo Messenger

LabrugThu, 26 Aug 2010, 02:57 pm

Thank you Theo

Right, some teeth and I'm pleased you disagree - ;-) - BTW Hi Theo. Been a while.

Firstly thank you for the clarification regarding the comparison between Community Theatre and Professional. That was an area I was very grey on. Good to have that cleared up.

Re-reading my comments, I find that I was rather reactionary. They are a reflection of attitudes I have encountered more so than anything else.

"lack of rehearsal has got more to do with teams not achieving their goals fast enough" - Yes, that is my point. It isn't the sole responsibility of the Company, Director or Actor. It is a Team Effort.

And as to the responsibilities of the Director I would also agree and add

provides strong motivation and vision.

"I have to take offence at the statement "It's only community theatre..." " - Actually, I think I left myself open there. Was not intended in that sense. I was implying that the attitude is often that way, at least in my experience, in both the director and the actor of a particular show. It was not a slur on the quality and abilities of Community Theatre (CT) in general. Many a time have I been in a show where either the director or fellow cast members have apparently been there for the lark of it, not because they had any faith in what they were doing. It's been a social event, a chance to meet guys/girls. It is highly frustrating when you want to make this thing you are a part of good and there are others who see it as a night out.

I have often spouted that I believe CT to be often better than Pro due to the Passion members have for their shows. When that passion is ignited, supported and allowed to flourish, then the results are inspiring. We do it because we love it and when that works, it works beautifully. When it doesn't, it really crashes (and that's not too say that Pro work doesn't crash, you just don't seem to hear about it as often ;-) )

My comments were of course in direct response to the statement "Surely the director is to blame here? He is the one who can call more rehearsals or get on the actors backs and demand they rehearse more at home." and refers to shows that "appear" under-rehearsed.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins

Looking for an Agent? Read this first!!

Theo MessengerThu, 26 Aug 2010, 04:28 pm

Fair Call

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?

LabrugThu, 26 Aug 2010, 04:50 pm

Some agreeance

DEBATE!!! ;-)

"the director ... has the ultimate responsibility to claim."

That is true in a general sense and if I know (as a director) that if the cast have worked very hard, and I have done everything I can think of, and still there is something lacking, I can't help but feel responsible for that. As with any guide or rule there are exceptions - few though they may (or may not) be. Expecting a Director to be able to enforce additional rehearsals, or to have some sort of dominion over the time the actors have to rehearse I feel is asking just a little too much. The actor needs to take some responsibility for their own efforts and focus. They also need to balance family life, work, leasure, etc in the equation. Each will have their own priorities and they will never coincide.

So to take the stance that an apparently under-rehearsed play could have been avoided if the director had stepped up and taken more affirmative action is a little unrealistic. Certainly, a director needs to ensure that they have done all they can, their best effort, and they must be held accountable for that. An actor likewise must be accountable for their own performance and dedication beyond the scope of the direction.

I believe that a director can only ever be as good as their cast's full potential, yet a cast can surpass that of the director given the right motivation.

PS Life is interesting. Thanks for asking.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins

Looking for an Agent? Read this first!!

Walter PlingeSat, 28 Aug 2010, 02:38 pm

a small question

Jeff, Tom - do you believe all directors are male? Or just the bad ones?

jeffhansenSat, 28 Aug 2010, 03:21 pm

An odd question. Without

An odd question. Without know if you're referring to me or Jeff W, why would you pose such an obviously loaded question? www.meltheco.org.au

Walter PlingeSat, 28 Aug 2010, 03:54 pm

a relevant question nevertheless

"Surely the director is to blame here? He is the one who can call more rehearsals" "A director has to treat his cast carefully."

jeffhansenSat, 28 Aug 2010, 04:38 pm

A pronoun had to be used.

A pronoun had to be used. Maybe just the fact that the writer was male, was the reason he chose to use the male pronoun. Were Jeff and Tom referring to themselves as directors? He/she-his/her is just clumsy. What would you suggest? Personally, I've known some rubbish directors of both genders. www.meltheco.org.au

LabrugSat, 28 Aug 2010, 04:42 pm

Gentle-folk

Not at all. Tom and I are both gentlemen, and out of pure chivalry, we would never tar women in the same brush as men. We'll leave that for the more cavalier or our brethern.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins

Looking for an Agent? Read this first!!

NaSat, 28 Aug 2010, 04:54 pm

Is this seriously the best

Is this seriously the best the trolls can do these days? Man, they must be losing their touch!

Bass GuySat, 28 Aug 2010, 07:00 pm

Tell 'em to rad the FAQ, Na....

.... couldn't resist, sorry!! ;-)

Walter PlingeSat, 28 Aug 2010, 07:19 pm

hmmmm

As a female director, language matters. You may think it is irrelevant or off-topic but it matters. I started following this thread because in my line of work actors being under-rehearsed can be a problem and I was interested in what people had to say on the topic. However I am always turned off when I see something like this because frankly it's lazy and rude. I think it was exactly the fact that the writer was male that he chose to use the male pronoun and despite you thinking his/her is clumsy I noticed that somebody else in this thread took the trouble to use it. In discussing the qualities of a good director perhaps you should also mention that a good director uses inclusive language so that no-one feels trivialized or belittled. Words matter! It is a brave director or actor that would argue they don't. Jeff - I am winding you up ever so slightly and I know that there was never any intention to be rude or sexist. I just wanted to make the point that words are very powerful things and it is worth taking the trouble with them because they matter.

NaSat, 28 Aug 2010, 07:36 pm

As a female

As a female writer/techie/puppeteer, I didn't even consider the use of 'he' in this thread. Knowing the regulars as I do, and reading the thread in context of each of the regular's POV, I did not think at all of the pronoun because many of the playwright/directors on here are male and speak in terms of their own experience. Of all the controversial (or not) topics to discuss in this thread, I see the complaint of the use of a pronoun to be fairly over-reactive. I also know that those who spoke in this topic have no sexist intentions, and if you take a look at the recent "vale" threads on this site, you might come to the conclusion that a number of them respect their female counterparts a great deal. Frankly, woman or not, I don't see how the use of 'he' or 'she' really has an impact on whether or not actors are under-rehearsed, or how to combat bad productions because of that under-rehearsal. Furthermore, if you're complaint is that the feamle point of view is not being considered here, maybe instead of picking on the choice of words, you actually particupate in the discussion. Do you, as a female director, have trouble getting actors to rehearse properly? Do you find that they're under-rehearsed as compared to male directors? That might actually contribute to the discussion. But as Jeff says, DFT.

Walter PlingeSat, 28 Aug 2010, 08:53 pm

well if you put it like that

Ok - on the subject of shows being under-rehearsed. In my experience I believe that when a show is under-rehearsed it is generally the fault of the director. Professional or amateur the rehearsal scheduling is their domain as is the over-all cohesion of the show. However although this topic was begun in regards to community theatre I believe the problem is not confined there. I know many actors who have found themselves performing scenes that have had no rehearsal at all at previews for such companies as Bell Shakespeare and MTC. In my opinion this is unforgivable and as a professional director it has always been a priority with me that actors are given adequate rehearsal as we expect a lot from them in return. In community theatre however it is a little different. As was pointed out earlier artists participating in community work have different reasons for being there, limited time to give and varying degrees of skill and as we probably all have experienced, quite often need to be replaced at short notice. Directors of community theatre too are often learning their craft part-time so to speak and sometimes will fall into traps that a more experienced or trained director would not. Should the shows be canceled because of this? I think not. In the long run I think most audiences are fairly forgiving of community theatre in areas they would not be of a professional show, and rightly so. At the end of the day I don't think there is significant long-term damage done to a club by one or two less than perfect shows and at the very least the individuals involved can take away their own ideas about how to work a rehearsal room and implement them in future productions. One further point Na - you come across as very aggressive. At no time did I suggest that the female perspective was under-represented on this site nor did I accuse anyone of being sexist. In fact I even stated that I knew they were not being so and was just making a small but important point - a point that came directly from language used in the thread so in it's way was not that far off topic after all. You appear to think that I have never visited this site before, read any of the topics or know any of the people who regularly contribute. In which case you defensive "get off our turf" attitude may be understandable if not excusable. In actual fact I have been a regular visitor to this site since it's inception and am fairly familiar with many of it's contributors. Your hostility toward me really quite took my breath away and I think really undermined the spirit in which this site was set up.

JoeMcSun, 29 Aug 2010, 05:07 pm

jJust a tanners worth.From

Just a tanners worth.

From memory of proeatre,when I was a wee beren, they spent on average about 250 hours in rehearsals for a show. Which was over normally over about 6 weeks & a similar time frame to us lot in ameatre, yet we only afford around less than half the actual rehearsal time, not including the sets & staging of the mis en scene. Which is not given that much thought untill a few weeks before the dress rehearsals or even latter.

So wouldn't it come down to firstly the group commitee followed by the director, as suggested in the previous posts?

crgwllmsSun, 29 Aug 2010, 11:57 pm

He said / She said

As someone who believes language matters so entirely, you ought to have proof-read for errors your last couple of sentences, one of which didn't actually make sense...! You obviously feel passionately about the subject, which is perhaps why you became a little incoherent as you yourself became defensive in the very sentence wherein you accuse Na of being defensive. Sorry, but I didn't read Na as coming across as defensive or aggressive. She came across as inclusive...inviting you to finally join the conversation in a constructive way rather than cryptically winding up the other participants. If, as you say, you are so familiar with this site then surely you would recognise Troll-like behaviour in your very own initial posts? As far as the pronoun debate, sure, both sides have a valid argument - until we translate the whole conversation into a language like French or German. Then suddenly every noun has a somewhat arbitrary gender, and the gender of the pronouns becomes rather less significant. Just because English doesn't have a better option for a neutral pronoun other than the convention of picking the shortest one for convenience, it doesn't mean the author's intention in using them wasn't neutral. The subject of pronoun gender is both a highly significant topic, and a petty irrelevant topic, depending on whose agenda is being followed. Both points of view therefore cancel each other out. The only thing that's relevant is whether the discussion relates to the topic at hand....and I'm glad to see that finally in this fourth attempt you are actually contributing something relevant to the thread. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

crgwllmsMon, 30 Aug 2010, 01:47 am

Touché

"As a female director, language matters. " So are you saying that language doesn't matter to male directors? Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Walter PlingeMon, 30 Aug 2010, 08:56 am

apologies

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.

LabrugMon, 30 Aug 2010, 09:29 am

The point in itself

Nicely put and a good summary.

"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. ... we generally do not know the back story and must ... make allowances."

This statement I feel neatly sums up the collective thoughts of this dialogue. Hear hear!

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins

Looking for an Agent? Read this first!!

LogosMon, 30 Aug 2010, 10:51 am

Probably a digression

But leading on from Joe's comment. What happened to the old rule of thumb that you need an hours rehearsal for each minute the production will run. That's non musicals of course. Probably longer for them. I don't direct musicals so I don't know. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Lisa SkrypMon, 30 Aug 2010, 11:49 am

rehearsal time

very interesting thread! I've never heard of the ratio to which Logos refers, but it's something to think about. The "shit happens" factor mentioned by kissthetide & seconded by Labrug is of course always there, but I guess the Team working to put on a show to the best of their collective ability must also do their best to disaster-proof themselves, ie) prepare & rehearse as much as they reasonably can, within the constraints of the rest of their lives. No brainer, I know. I do think sometimes things fall apart due to an idividual's poor time management, laziness (not generally consciously), or a combination of these (we are not all as noble as Jeff believes, although most of us do give our very best). I believe the best thing a director/stage manager can do at the outset of a production is to make sure the Team is clear on the goal (great show), resource requirements (rehearsal & own time), & any known limitations to achieving the above, and ask the Team for a commitment to achieve that goal. Yes, the shit may still happen, but if everyone pulls their weight from the outset, the Team will be more resilient to problems. Perhaps a Team meeting (I'm getting annoyed at my capitalisation too, but it's to highlight a point) at the outset of rehearsal at key stages would also help to ensure everyone is on track & no surprises. All sounds a bit corporate, but we can learn useful things from anywhere, that can then be applied anywhere else - how good is that?

LabrugMon, 30 Aug 2010, 12:03 pm

Hey Lisa

Heh, good to see you mucking in.

I admit to a certain belief in the honourability of all mankind (or is that people-kind <soft-dig>) and that people choose if they play to their honour or to shy from it.

Life is about choice. Sometimes, there is just too much of it. Sometimes, too little. Either way, it's the only thing we can truly control, our choices.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins

Looking for an Agent? Read this first!!

jeffhansenMon, 30 Aug 2010, 12:47 pm

I think we need a DIGRESS

I think we need a DIGRESS option in the Moderation pull down. :) www.meltheco.org.au

LabrugMon, 30 Aug 2010, 12:52 pm

To consider

Something to consider in any future upgrades.

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins

Looking for an Agent? Read this first!!

stingerMon, 30 Aug 2010, 03:17 pm

Back to Gordon's original posting...

In my observation, most community theatre shows include actors ranging from very experienced to inexperienced. Among them, you also get a sub-range of fast-learners and slow-learners. The director has to try to pull it all together without putting anyone's nose out of joint. If the fast-learning experienced actors are prepared to help their slower, less experienced cast-mates, it makes it much easier. Sometimes though, for whatever reason, they don't all peak at the same time; hence you get the impression that the whole thing is under-rehearsed. I like the logos formula though. Ssstinger>>>

Walter PlingeMon, 30 Aug 2010, 04:03 pm

Digress?

Or is it called spam?

← Back to Billboard Bulletins