How long should a run be?
Mon, 13 Sept 2010, 04:01 pmGordon the Optom10 posts in thread
How long should a run be?
Mon, 13 Sept 2010, 04:01 pm There was a show a few weeks ago that I had seen, which had odd faults that I thought would sort themselves as the season went on, however they didn’t, and the show was later described as ‘dire’. Recently a couple whose opinion I respect told me, that another comedy that I had really enjoyed and highly recommended was awful. This presentation was by a well-established and respected company. On the night that I saw this play it was at it’s best for timing, pace, interaction, visuals etc, yet according to my friends, with their performance nothing worked. Even the story was hard to follow, and the cast appeared to be floundering - there was certainly no magic there.
Every company has the odd bad performance, but what I am wondering is, with community theatre especially, does ennui set in towards the final show?
In the UK the pantomime season runs for up to three months, even the Curtin pantomimes used to run for 32 shows, by the end of which the cast were exhausted – now it is around only 12 shows. Recently ‘King Lear’ was on a long national tour, but the cast still kept up the quality. Should the audience, or the producer, be prepared to accept large variations in the nightly standard of amateur theatre?
Because a play or its writer is well known, or the show has a famous TV background, does this mean that the number of performances should be increased to meet public demand? Should the season be set at what the cast are capable of handling? Or are some runs simply too long?
Every company has the odd bad performance, but what I am wondering is, with community theatre especially, does ennui set in towards the final show?
In the UK the pantomime season runs for up to three months, even the Curtin pantomimes used to run for 32 shows, by the end of which the cast were exhausted – now it is around only 12 shows. Recently ‘King Lear’ was on a long national tour, but the cast still kept up the quality. Should the audience, or the producer, be prepared to accept large variations in the nightly standard of amateur theatre?
Because a play or its writer is well known, or the show has a famous TV background, does this mean that the number of performances should be increased to meet public demand? Should the season be set at what the cast are capable of handling? Or are some runs simply too long?
Good question
Mon, 13 Sept 2010, 09:59 pmI admire community theatre actors but the problem is that they have day jobs.I mean if you are a pro you don't suddenly remember that you hadn't returned that phone call you should have and you aren't standing on stage thinking about how you have to get up at 6am to go to work.
The very fact that so many actors in community theatre manage to hold down a day job and yet still put in fantastic performances every night leaves me stunned.
There is bound to be some variation in performance when you have to cope with two full time lives.
I realise that too short a season can leave you feeling that there is more to be explored but too long and exhaustion takes over.
Three weeks is probably a good choice.
I've worked English Panto 40 - 50 shows in a run. 3 show days when you can't remember whether its the 2nd act of the first show or the first act of the second show and whether the break you just had was lunch or tea. (I was a technician.) I can remember one show where I was giving the cast their half hour call as they came off stage from the previous show. What price lunch?
With semi-pro casts in the Adelaide Fringe I usually run my shows for between 14 and 18 performances over three weeks. Depends how many matinees we do for schools.
Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au