What happened to Committment?
Wed, 25 Feb 2004, 10:37 amHarbour12 posts in thread
What happened to Committment?
Wed, 25 Feb 2004, 10:37 amThere used to be a saying "The show must go on".
People were committed to a particular club (or two) and that no matter how bad the play was, or how unbearable the situation, there was a commitment from everyone involved in a production to carry on. There was a dedication to the audience to go ahead. That seems to have been lost over the last few years.
Now, actors are only interested in performing for themselves - stuff the audience, and if my ego gets hurt, then there is no hestitation in pulling out - stuff the consequences. And I can understand and sympathise with some of the reasons. It is very distressing to the self when there are 'problems' with a production, or a person, that can make the rehearsals very unbearable, and I think there isn't a time in every show when I would like to quit. BUT, we are not in this for yourselves. We do this to bring entertainment to others and by pulling out of a production before it goes up is a disappointment to the audience and to everyone else involved. Not to mention the cost of reimbursement of memberships, royalties, publicity, tickets, etc.
But this appears to be the way of the future, and it's sad. Virtually every club is struggling to find committed members to run the Club, or do backstage or FOH. It is often left to a few overworked and dedicated individuals, while all the rest flitter from club to club to perform, then move on when the going gets tough.
Well, it's not good enough. That is why productions and theatre's fold - no commitment. If you are going to perform in a show, be committed, otherwise DON'T waste yours and our time coming to auditions.
There, I got that off my chest. Now, is there anyone out there that cares?
People were committed to a particular club (or two) and that no matter how bad the play was, or how unbearable the situation, there was a commitment from everyone involved in a production to carry on. There was a dedication to the audience to go ahead. That seems to have been lost over the last few years.
Now, actors are only interested in performing for themselves - stuff the audience, and if my ego gets hurt, then there is no hestitation in pulling out - stuff the consequences. And I can understand and sympathise with some of the reasons. It is very distressing to the self when there are 'problems' with a production, or a person, that can make the rehearsals very unbearable, and I think there isn't a time in every show when I would like to quit. BUT, we are not in this for yourselves. We do this to bring entertainment to others and by pulling out of a production before it goes up is a disappointment to the audience and to everyone else involved. Not to mention the cost of reimbursement of memberships, royalties, publicity, tickets, etc.
But this appears to be the way of the future, and it's sad. Virtually every club is struggling to find committed members to run the Club, or do backstage or FOH. It is often left to a few overworked and dedicated individuals, while all the rest flitter from club to club to perform, then move on when the going gets tough.
Well, it's not good enough. That is why productions and theatre's fold - no commitment. If you are going to perform in a show, be committed, otherwise DON'T waste yours and our time coming to auditions.
There, I got that off my chest. Now, is there anyone out there that cares?
Re: What happened to Committment?
Wed, 25 Feb 2004, 12:16 pmHi Rob,
Do you have any specific instances/promptings for your posting?
Seems to be a pretty broad brush you're painting with - and 2 distinct issues:
1. Club admin.
2. Performers.
As for no 1, in the 15 or so years I've been connected to community theatre, the "a few good men (persons)" syndrome is nothing new. I have literally watched 5 people run Playlovers for most of that time with the occassional outside help. Garrick was similar (though with a few more regulars). GRADS (in recent years) appears to be the worst of the lot in this regard. I think Johnno Beckett has singlehandedly kept that club from going under a couple of times.
(NOTE to GRAD-ites: If I'm speaking out of turn, re GRADS, I apologise - this is merely observation from a distance. And an opinion formed on the back of several conversations).
As for performers, well, maybe it's changed... but I always thought keeping an actor 'enrolled' in a project was a product not only of club 'bonhomie' but directorial 'leadership'. Plus, as an actor, I'd be EXTREMELY aware that a reputation for this sort of thing tends to get built VERY quickly...
Just my 0.022c worth (with GST)
Jason
Do you have any specific instances/promptings for your posting?
Seems to be a pretty broad brush you're painting with - and 2 distinct issues:
1. Club admin.
2. Performers.
As for no 1, in the 15 or so years I've been connected to community theatre, the "a few good men (persons)" syndrome is nothing new. I have literally watched 5 people run Playlovers for most of that time with the occassional outside help. Garrick was similar (though with a few more regulars). GRADS (in recent years) appears to be the worst of the lot in this regard. I think Johnno Beckett has singlehandedly kept that club from going under a couple of times.
(NOTE to GRAD-ites: If I'm speaking out of turn, re GRADS, I apologise - this is merely observation from a distance. And an opinion formed on the back of several conversations).
As for performers, well, maybe it's changed... but I always thought keeping an actor 'enrolled' in a project was a product not only of club 'bonhomie' but directorial 'leadership'. Plus, as an actor, I'd be EXTREMELY aware that a reputation for this sort of thing tends to get built VERY quickly...
Just my 0.022c worth (with GST)
Jason
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···