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, 12:30 pmWalter Plinge
Just a few thoughts regarding your posting Rob:
You seem to be talking about two different problems - (1) commitment to a club (helping with the committee, working backstage etc), and (2) commitment to a production. Firstly:
Rob said:
"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."
As a 25 yr old who started acting 5yrs ago, I do have a couple of theories as to why 'club' commitment is dwindling. Mainly I think its a negative side-effect of what are otherwise very positive developments. Firstly there is the fact that even during the short time I've been around, the 'theatre club' acting scene has become less of a series of isolated clubs and more of, well, a scene, in which people act, direct and otherwise work on pieces that take their interest, rather than limiting themselves to one or two clubs in their area. Frankly, I think the primary reason for that is the existence of this website - now performers and crew can find out about productions all over the state, hence reducing the need to commit themselves to a particular club.
Secondly, there is the growth and intermerging of the fringe/indie scene. Performers don't need to see themselves anymore as strictly 'amateur', 'fringe' or 'pro'. Most actors I know under 30 perform in both the Blue Room/Rechabites shows and ALSO with local theatre clubs, in addition to taking the odd scrap of salaried acting work that may crop up. Hence for younger actors their attention is now far more divided - there's less reason to commit oneself to joining a committee or supporting a particular club when one spends just as much time working with fringe theatre groups or producing one's own work.
That's not saying that the decrease in 'club' commitment isn't a bad thing - its just that in the light of increased opportunity to performers and producers, as well as the increased communication across the independent theatre scene, it has been a bad side-effect of what is overall a good development.
There is also the perception (I'm not saying this is true - just noting it as a perception) that the management and show-choice of community theatre groups is dominated by the older segment of the theatre community. Now I know personally of community theatre groups where that isn't the case, and furthermore there is also the obvious answer of 'well, you can't complain about a theatre group marketing itself to an older audience/membership when the under 30s won't get up and join, come along to shows or do anything else about it'. However, regardless of how much justification there is in those arguments, it doesn't change the reality that if perfomers don't like a theatre club's usual programme they are far more likely to just shop around other clubs, or produce their own work or their friends' work at the Blue Room, than they are to get involved in that club and have their say in programming decisions.
On the point above - I think there is also the problem of what appears to be a growing gap between the types of show that performers (especially under-30 performers) want to perform in, and the shows that will actually bring in viable money for clubs. Its pretty much taken for granted that clubs who please performers by putting on adventurous, challenging or unknown works are likely to have greater difficulty in maintaining themselves financially, rather than ones which rely on house-fillers. [Of course there are a lot of perfomers who also like to do very popular work and I'm not knocking that - I'm of the opinion that performing a known and popular play well is usually more difficult than doing a piece where audiences have no expectations.] On the other hand, maybe clubs should view their programmes as having a dual marketing edge - to attract both audience on one hand, and members on the other. I personally am a member of one club, GRADS, and have been for a few years, simply because I consistently like their programme as both a performer and an audience member.
Again please note that I'm not trying to give justifications for there being a few overworked individuals that keep clubs running - I'm simply suggesting reasons why that is the case (there is a difference between justifying something and explaining it, which I hope you understand).
Commitment to a production, on the other hand, is a different matter which isn't necessarily related to commitment to a particular club.
Rob said:
"If you are going to perform in a show, be committed, otherwise DON'T waste yours and our time coming to auditions."
Now I think putting the 'commitment' requirement at the stage of AUDITIONING may be a bit harsh - unlike the director, who already knows that he's got a spot, actors don't find out until some time after the audition whether they've been cast. Which means that if you are a performer that tries to keep oneself performing or rehearsing for something all year round, or with as few breaks as possible, it is impossible to do so without auditioning for several alternative shows at the one time. Frankly, I don't think that should be a problem - why should a person's commitment to a production come before that production makes a commitment to cast that person? Given that most of the time the director doesn't inform people who have missed out, it's a bit much to ask someone to turn down other roles before they've even been cast - during which time the director on the other hand has no obligation to the auditionee whatsover.
With regards to pulling out AFTER being cast, that's a different matter. I'm sad to say I've done that twice - once before rehearsals started and once after the first rehearsal - neither of which had anything to do with the perceived quality of what were very good productions. I probably wouldn't do the same now. On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily look down on another actor for pulling out of a show if the rehearsal process hadn't actually started yet - there's always a matter of balancing inconvenience, and the difficulty of recasting a role may in some cases be less than that of dealing with an actor who'd rather they weren't there. At the same time I can certainly see that the time you agree to involvement in a show is the point at which a commitment is made, and expected to be kept, and personally I think that at that stage one shouldn't pull out except through injury or emergency.
Rob said: "That is why productions and theatre's fold - no commitment".
Without intending to sound rude - I presume that this is hyperbole:-). There has been a lot of discussion on these boards about the problems facing theatre, and I don't think that commitment is the only reason for productions/theatres folding.
You seem to be talking about two different problems - (1) commitment to a club (helping with the committee, working backstage etc), and (2) commitment to a production. Firstly:
Rob said:
"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."
As a 25 yr old who started acting 5yrs ago, I do have a couple of theories as to why 'club' commitment is dwindling. Mainly I think its a negative side-effect of what are otherwise very positive developments. Firstly there is the fact that even during the short time I've been around, the 'theatre club' acting scene has become less of a series of isolated clubs and more of, well, a scene, in which people act, direct and otherwise work on pieces that take their interest, rather than limiting themselves to one or two clubs in their area. Frankly, I think the primary reason for that is the existence of this website - now performers and crew can find out about productions all over the state, hence reducing the need to commit themselves to a particular club.
Secondly, there is the growth and intermerging of the fringe/indie scene. Performers don't need to see themselves anymore as strictly 'amateur', 'fringe' or 'pro'. Most actors I know under 30 perform in both the Blue Room/Rechabites shows and ALSO with local theatre clubs, in addition to taking the odd scrap of salaried acting work that may crop up. Hence for younger actors their attention is now far more divided - there's less reason to commit oneself to joining a committee or supporting a particular club when one spends just as much time working with fringe theatre groups or producing one's own work.
That's not saying that the decrease in 'club' commitment isn't a bad thing - its just that in the light of increased opportunity to performers and producers, as well as the increased communication across the independent theatre scene, it has been a bad side-effect of what is overall a good development.
There is also the perception (I'm not saying this is true - just noting it as a perception) that the management and show-choice of community theatre groups is dominated by the older segment of the theatre community. Now I know personally of community theatre groups where that isn't the case, and furthermore there is also the obvious answer of 'well, you can't complain about a theatre group marketing itself to an older audience/membership when the under 30s won't get up and join, come along to shows or do anything else about it'. However, regardless of how much justification there is in those arguments, it doesn't change the reality that if perfomers don't like a theatre club's usual programme they are far more likely to just shop around other clubs, or produce their own work or their friends' work at the Blue Room, than they are to get involved in that club and have their say in programming decisions.
On the point above - I think there is also the problem of what appears to be a growing gap between the types of show that performers (especially under-30 performers) want to perform in, and the shows that will actually bring in viable money for clubs. Its pretty much taken for granted that clubs who please performers by putting on adventurous, challenging or unknown works are likely to have greater difficulty in maintaining themselves financially, rather than ones which rely on house-fillers. [Of course there are a lot of perfomers who also like to do very popular work and I'm not knocking that - I'm of the opinion that performing a known and popular play well is usually more difficult than doing a piece where audiences have no expectations.] On the other hand, maybe clubs should view their programmes as having a dual marketing edge - to attract both audience on one hand, and members on the other. I personally am a member of one club, GRADS, and have been for a few years, simply because I consistently like their programme as both a performer and an audience member.
Again please note that I'm not trying to give justifications for there being a few overworked individuals that keep clubs running - I'm simply suggesting reasons why that is the case (there is a difference between justifying something and explaining it, which I hope you understand).
Commitment to a production, on the other hand, is a different matter which isn't necessarily related to commitment to a particular club.
Rob said:
"If you are going to perform in a show, be committed, otherwise DON'T waste yours and our time coming to auditions."
Now I think putting the 'commitment' requirement at the stage of AUDITIONING may be a bit harsh - unlike the director, who already knows that he's got a spot, actors don't find out until some time after the audition whether they've been cast. Which means that if you are a performer that tries to keep oneself performing or rehearsing for something all year round, or with as few breaks as possible, it is impossible to do so without auditioning for several alternative shows at the one time. Frankly, I don't think that should be a problem - why should a person's commitment to a production come before that production makes a commitment to cast that person? Given that most of the time the director doesn't inform people who have missed out, it's a bit much to ask someone to turn down other roles before they've even been cast - during which time the director on the other hand has no obligation to the auditionee whatsover.
With regards to pulling out AFTER being cast, that's a different matter. I'm sad to say I've done that twice - once before rehearsals started and once after the first rehearsal - neither of which had anything to do with the perceived quality of what were very good productions. I probably wouldn't do the same now. On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily look down on another actor for pulling out of a show if the rehearsal process hadn't actually started yet - there's always a matter of balancing inconvenience, and the difficulty of recasting a role may in some cases be less than that of dealing with an actor who'd rather they weren't there. At the same time I can certainly see that the time you agree to involvement in a show is the point at which a commitment is made, and expected to be kept, and personally I think that at that stage one shouldn't pull out except through injury or emergency.
Rob said: "That is why productions and theatre's fold - no commitment".
Without intending to sound rude - I presume that this is hyperbole:-). There has been a lot of discussion on these boards about the problems facing theatre, and I don't think that commitment is the only reason for productions/theatres folding.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···