Ten Quid cancelled

Phoenix Theatre wish to advise that due to insufficient interest, the planned production of Ten Quid is cancelled. On behalf of Hywel Williams, and the Phoenix Theatre we thank all who expressed an interest in the play. PS: Phoenix are currently reviewing / sourcing a replacement production. cheers Johnny Grim

Commiserations John. Hate to see that happen. www.meltheco.org.au

What was the writer thinking? Setting a play in the middle of rainy Manchester and staging it in sunny Perth. Is the guy in sane? As Arnie says..we'll be back, but with a tad less muscle cheers Johnny

Had it happen to me. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au www.moorebooks.net.au

Seems to be the year for it... Is this the fourth or fifth play to be cancelled this year for one reason or another?

It seems to be the state of theatre. So Sad. I feel like we are always preaching to the converted. So hard to get people interested, so hard to keep people interested without having to fall over pampering egos, so hard to sell anything that hasn't a proven track record... I could go on but again, preaching to the converted. JennyFer

I feel there are just too many productions for the available talent pool. There are only so many people in town interested in being part of a show. Some squeeze in as many shows as they can, but most might do one or two a year, due to family and other commitments. How often do we see the call "Actors needed, or we have to cancel"? Maybe not scheduling as many shows to start with might be an answer. www.meltheco.org.au

As distasteful as it may seem, there is definitely a dirge in older actors willing to be part of a cast, however I rarely hear of trouble when it comes to casting younger people. Perhaps more theater's should take note of this and choose plays accordingly.

As distasteful as it may seem, there is definitely a dirge in older actors willing to be part of a cast, however I rarely hear of trouble when it comes to casting younger people. Perhaps more theater's should take note of this and choose plays accordingly.

We have similar problems in SA. Younger males are a real issue, you have to go out and woo them and there are almost no older males. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au www.moorebooks.net.au

So sorry to read this, we suffer a shortage of male talent (any age, some worse than others) so don't know if that had a bearing? And I read Norma's comment with interest. Same thing happens here. People get the hump with the company they have been working with, stomp off into the night to form their own, get at least one, sometimes two, shows on and then it all just .... drifts away and things go quiet....and non existent. I am generalising you understand, there are exceptions. The facts seem to be: 1)there are very few people willing to do the hard yards and keep a company going after the initial burst of activity 2)male actors are in short supply 3)play going audiences develop tastes in what they want to see 4)plays that younger people want to do aren't automatically audience taste and can be very hard to market (ie: Rent. I have yet to see a financially successful community/amateur production. Audiences stay away, yet companys want to do it because the talent want to do it...and so we go around in circles). Answers? Dunno but maybe: 1) keep the committee small, no dead wood 2) do plays with a majority female cast 3) comedy rules, as does farce and thrillers 4) remember that just because you have just read a play that you think is the best thing since sliced bread and you are BURSTING to do it because it is relevant/trendy/just plain fun/etc etc that your audience may not want to see it. Do it anyway but be prepared to take the loss All of which is easier said than done. So sorry Johnny and Hywel. Maybe re-schedule and do some serious head hunting well beforehand?? Cheer up! :)

"Life is too short to stuff a mushroom"

www.moorebooks.net.au

 

It's getting so damned hard to cast people these days.

I'm not a big fan of 'ditto' comment but I have to agree with Jeff and Norma in that the number of shows that are being put on is stretching the available casting pool and there are indeed a lot of 'start-up' companies that match Norma's description. However, the question that I will put out there is: What do the companies themselves to establish and maintain an active membership, and by this I mean a membership that goes from one production to the next? Regards to all, David.

Hi Norma, I must comment that it is very difficult for we 'homeless companies' to find homes that allow us to show our material. A lad in sane is a classic example. If not, for the support of The Old Mill, and the Phoenix Theatre I fear my material would still be gathering dust in the attic. It's somewhat of a double edged sword. Johnny Grim

Seems to me the Am and pro-am theatre groups in WA still need to learn that players generally want to get involved with well known proven audience pullers rather than risk working for weeks on material that will not draw decent houses as after all it is audience appreciation that provides the players "payment". The State theatre many years ago under Edgar Medcalfe put on popular plays (generally comedies) that the punters wanted and played to full houses. Along came Aarne Neeme who insisted on putting on plays that "the public should see not what they wanted to see" and plunged the company to the brink from which to this day it hasn't recovered. Experimental theatre needs a venue much like La Mama in Melbourne, a tiny place that wasn't all that difficult to fill with friends and relations who sadly are about all the people that really want to spend money on an unknown product. I agree that Community theatre groups often try to mount too many productions and too complex productions for both the on and off stage talent available with a resultant fall in quality. Lose a punter due to poor quality and you have a devil of a job to lure them back. Put on fewer but better quality offerings and carefully target your audience....GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT!!

I must disagree with Maljo. Firstly, as an actor, my payment comes mostly from my involvement in a show, especially if it challenges me as an artist, and helps me improve my craft. Audience appreciation is a plus. My least favourite part of the night is meeting the audience after the show. Secondly, and a club committee member, I can say that we, as clubs, are well aware that certain shows will draw audiences, certain shows will attract actors, and some will do both. The club, as the producer, needs to find a balance of shows that attract an audience, and shows that provide an interest to actors. It is true that some actors only want to be in shows that guarantee big audience numbers, but there are also those actors who want to be involved in a project for purely selfish (and I don't use this in a negative way) reasons. This is the difference between those who want to be stars, and those who are actors. www.meltheco.org.au

Good comment Jeff "It is true that some actors only want to be in shows that guarantee big audience numbers, but there are also those actors who want to be involved in a project for purely selfish (and I don't use this in a negative way) reasons. This is the difference between those who want to be stars, and those who are actors." And sadly too often true...but I know which category I prefer :)

"Life is too short to stuff a mushroom"

www.moorebooks.net.au

 

Jeff and Rapunzel, your points are well made and in general terms I agree, however You must accept that there is hardly anything as soul destroying as playing to a near empty house that provides no audience feedback. It doesn't matter how good the production and performances are if the public don't support it you will lose money. If the public stay away because of quality you will lose money and credibility. Select plays or musicals that can be done well with the talent resources available.

I've been involved in some excellent shows that have played to nearly empty houses. Melville's production of "Navigating" comes to mind. Last year I directed "The Return", which, overall, played to very poor houses. 20 - 30 most nights, with the odd 60-ish house. I also struggled to cast the show. While it would have been great to play to full houses, I think everyone involved in the production was fulfilled, and proud of the show we put together. Other people seemed to agree that it was a good show. The public weren't staying away because of the quality of the show, they were staying away because the theatre going public is conservative, and won't part with their entertainment dollar for a show with which they are unfamiliar. For this reason we, as a company, have to balance shows like The Return and Navigating with shows like Doctor in the House, Pride and Prejudice and The Mousetrap. the latter will draw crowds regardless of the quality of the production. (Not inferring that our productions of these shows were/will be substandard). If we all did bums-on-seats shows all the time, what a boring, sterile place the theatre would be. We need to be able to perform shows with artistic merit, even if they don't pay the bills. This year Melville has found a good balance, I believe. We started the year with Zastrozzi and Crimes Of The Heart. Neither of these shows were expected to break any box office records, even though they were both very good productions (my opinion, and reviews were good). No one has heard of them. Crimes Of The Heart is still running for two more weekends by the way. Bookings on 9330 4565 :) We are going to finish the year with Don's Party and The Mousetrap. Even if both of these turn out to be rubbish, the punters will still come in droves, because they are familiar with the show. It's all about balance. www.meltheco.org.au

I really must make the effort to travel to Melville as they obviuosly never put on a dud show (despite admitted lack of public support on occassions) and have cast's and committee's without ego's. The main reason a playwrite creates a work is surely in the hope it will be performed AND RECEIVE BOTH CRITICAL AND PUBLIC PRAISE. If it fails on either front it could not (by any reasonable person) be deemed a success. It is pointless carrying on this debate because obviously Mr Hanson and I cannot agree on what critria a production should be assessed. The theatre going public is not afraid of supporting quality avante garde pieces as evedenced by the success of many such at PIAF however "quality" is the key. You ca polish a turd all you like but at the end of the process it is still a turd!

Not at all. We have had our fair share of turkeys. My point is that quality doesn't necessarily equate to public praise. A playwright's reasons for creating a work is a whole other issue, and not one that I have considered here. I'm talking purely from my view as an actor, and also as a committee member of a club. As an actor, I've been in some below average shows that were well attended. I've also, as stated earlier, done some good stuff that no one came to see. As an actor, I know which I prefer. You are suggesting that if a show isn't well attended, then it is a failure. That may be so in the professional ranks, where the bottom line is the yard stick by which all productions are invariably measured. For an amateur theatre company, as long as the club can continue to operate, any individual show not breaking even is neither here nor there. Having said that, I would whole heartedly agree that a show which is critically well received, as well as well attended is certainly what we all strive for. I only speak of Melville, as it is the club with which I mostly associate. A well reasoned debate is never pointless, until it descends into name calling. I do think you are spot on in saying that you and I have different criteria when it comes to measuring the success of a production. I guess your point of view depends on whether you are a playwright, actor, administrator or audient. www.meltheco.org.au

Maljo, I hear what you're saying, and in Perth, it's fair to say that a large number of theatre groups play it safe to a large degree (for the most obvious of reasons. Dare I ask the question, how does one judge the quality of anew production if we don't try it on for size. It is for the reasons above, that writers like me setup independent theatre groups which of course stretch the small pool of resources even further. Perhaps those of us writing, should simply give up doing so? Oh no..I feel an Importance of being Ernest moment coming on..must dash... cheers Johny Grim

As an 'older male' actor involved in community theatre I can say that I am not particularly influenced by the likely size of audience numbers when it comes to working out what to audition for. As a regular reader of the audition notices on this site, my usual thought process is more like: does it sound interesting, are there any characters I might have a possibility of playing, am I available for the show dates and how far away is the theatre given I am going to have to travel there 3 or 4 times a week for about 2 months (mundane I know, but important when you have a day job to fit in as well). If it passes through that filter then, if there is time I try to pick up a script from the library or contact the director for a script or extract to see if it is something I would like to try and be involved with. This may sound like a bit of work , but as Jeff said earlier it’s a big commitment, and one in community theatre that we do for love rather than money. Not sure this helps directors struggling to cast shows, other than to say that it probably helps to get provisional information as well in advance as possible.

"The main reason a playwrite creates a work is surely in the hope it will be performed AND RECEIVE BOTH CRITICAL AND PUBLIC PRAISE. If it fails on either front it could not (by any reasonable person) be deemed a success." Call me unreasonable then, because I have been in plays that have been deemed 'wonderful' by the critics but the audience stayed away in droves...and vice versa, some of them make me cringe when I think back too. This is life, this is the way it is. It won't stop me wanting to take the risk and do the unknown, the new, by someone we've never heard of, etc. After all, every play was new once upon a time. Who's to say that in 30, 40, 50 year's time I won't look back and think 'ah little flossy's play has done well hasn't it? I remember I was in the premiere production of that, performed to two people and a cat, these days it has sell out houses' It's finding the balance that is tricky for companys, mixing the tried and true, bums on seats, crowd pleasers with the .... unknown. Exciting!

"Life is too short to stuff a mushroom"

www.moorebooks.net.au

 

...why it is that this issue does not tend to affect musicals in Perth (ie. difficulty of casting; not attendance). I don't think I've heard of any musicals being cancelled due to inability to cast, including the more obscure/unknown works. Sure, there's sometimes a battle to get sufficient men who have the right skill set, but in the end they always seem to cast them. Whatever the reasons that people (women in particular) are lining up to audition for musicals and not plays in Perth, maybe the those reasons need to be the basis of community theatre programming, planning & problem solving. Not saying only musicals should be produced, but how to bring actors over to 'the dark side' ;)...