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, 04:39 pmWalter Plinge
Greg wrote:
"IÂ’d have to say that at this very moment, I donÂ’t ever want to see a stage again."
Personally I think that is indeed, unfortunate. If the situation we are arguing here is a matter of distintegration-due-to-personality-clash, I think the main thing we need to keep in mind is that, in my experience anyway, that rarely happens. People in theatre are sufficiently used to dealing with others they may or may not get on with, that whilst personality clashes occur, they rarely get to the stage where the production is jeapordised because of it.
That in mind, it is in some ways quite a different matter to discussing whether or not 'in general' someone is uncommitted because they pulled out of a play. I've never personally considered dropping out of a play due to the reasons you've described, but I think most of us can differentiate between a person who has - rightly or wrongly - made such a decision as a one-in-a-million event. You've probably made some enemies out of it, and there are probably people involved in that production who won't cast you in the future. However, in my experience the theatre community in general is an understanding and forgiving one - if you were to drop out of productions a few more times under similar circumstances you'd probably be bringing an end to your theatre involvement (among other things they might wonder whether you're the problem), but few directors would hold it against you for doing a 'once-off' dropout under unique circumstances, even if they (and I warn you, many will) STRONGLY disagree with your decision.
I've never worked with you myself, and I for one don't believe that personality clashes or the standard of a production justifies pulling out of it. But I also believe that sometimes people can make decisions that aren't necessarily reflective of their commitment to theatre, and it would be sad to lose an active participant due to one event.
Oh, on a side-point, I'm not taking this as a thing against what you are saying Rob (I have ABSOLUTELY no knowledge or involvement with the participants of whatever specific situation provoked this discussion), but as a matter of debate - you responded to my last post by saying it wasn't too much to expect actors to commit themselves at the point of audition. My query is what commitment do directors have to the actor at the point of audition - surely by your logic, if the actor attends the audition - and that is where the commitment is formed - then the director instantly has a duty to cast that actor. Obviously this is not the case - at the audition the only duty of the director is to listen to the audition, which frankly seems to correspond to the duty of the actor to prepare for the audition properly. Surely the duty of the director to cast the actor, and the actors duty to take part in the production, should be made simultaneously, rather than asking one person to commit themselves weeks before the corresponding commitment is made?
Just a few thoughts,
"IÂ’d have to say that at this very moment, I donÂ’t ever want to see a stage again."
Personally I think that is indeed, unfortunate. If the situation we are arguing here is a matter of distintegration-due-to-personality-clash, I think the main thing we need to keep in mind is that, in my experience anyway, that rarely happens. People in theatre are sufficiently used to dealing with others they may or may not get on with, that whilst personality clashes occur, they rarely get to the stage where the production is jeapordised because of it.
That in mind, it is in some ways quite a different matter to discussing whether or not 'in general' someone is uncommitted because they pulled out of a play. I've never personally considered dropping out of a play due to the reasons you've described, but I think most of us can differentiate between a person who has - rightly or wrongly - made such a decision as a one-in-a-million event. You've probably made some enemies out of it, and there are probably people involved in that production who won't cast you in the future. However, in my experience the theatre community in general is an understanding and forgiving one - if you were to drop out of productions a few more times under similar circumstances you'd probably be bringing an end to your theatre involvement (among other things they might wonder whether you're the problem), but few directors would hold it against you for doing a 'once-off' dropout under unique circumstances, even if they (and I warn you, many will) STRONGLY disagree with your decision.
I've never worked with you myself, and I for one don't believe that personality clashes or the standard of a production justifies pulling out of it. But I also believe that sometimes people can make decisions that aren't necessarily reflective of their commitment to theatre, and it would be sad to lose an active participant due to one event.
Oh, on a side-point, I'm not taking this as a thing against what you are saying Rob (I have ABSOLUTELY no knowledge or involvement with the participants of whatever specific situation provoked this discussion), but as a matter of debate - you responded to my last post by saying it wasn't too much to expect actors to commit themselves at the point of audition. My query is what commitment do directors have to the actor at the point of audition - surely by your logic, if the actor attends the audition - and that is where the commitment is formed - then the director instantly has a duty to cast that actor. Obviously this is not the case - at the audition the only duty of the director is to listen to the audition, which frankly seems to correspond to the duty of the actor to prepare for the audition properly. Surely the duty of the director to cast the actor, and the actors duty to take part in the production, should be made simultaneously, rather than asking one person to commit themselves weeks before the corresponding commitment is made?
Just a few thoughts,
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···