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?
Commit it to memory
Sat, 28 Feb 2004, 11:11 pmGrant Watson wrote:
>
> crgwllms wrote:
> > Professionally, once an offer is officially made, there is a
> > certain number of days later after which you need to decline,
> > or accept and sign a contract...and then you're legally
> > committed. But yes, I think the show of commitment starts at
> > your first audition, if you take yourself seriously as an
> > actor.
>
> While that ideal may work in a purely theoretical world, in
> practice it's never going to hold up.
> Sometimes a production can go bad, no one in control is
> doing enough to stop it from happening, and all you're doing
> is baanging your head against a wall until you get a
> concussion. I'm not saying the production discussed here was
> like that - I couldn't say - but sometimes it happens. And if
> a show goes that bad, there's sometimes nothing you can do
> but pull out and save yourself the grief.
>
> G.
No, even though it may seem that way to the amateur ranks, the professional world is not a purely theoretical one!
What I said certainly DOES hold up in practice for the pros - and by extension, for anyone who wants to be taken seriously and appear 'professional'.
If a professional production 'goes bad', ie: contractual obligations are not met, there are legal grounds for either side to pull the pin. If it becomes apparent that due to artistic reasons the personnel is not fit for the task, it can possibly be negotiated that changes be made...however, remember the controversy and mudslinging that arose from Black Swan's 'The Drawer Boy' a few years ago..?
Of course, a professional engagement is different because you're being paid to be there. With that proviso, it's amazing what you can learn to put up with! (I heard it said about film actors' salaries that they do the acting for free...it's the WAITING that they get paid for. Probably similar to theatre - the money is not so much for the performance but compensation for all the other trials and inconveniences.)
But I don't think the amateur status of a production should relieve you of the need to commit. If it 'goes bad' despite you showing your best efforts, it may be unpleasant but you'll come out looking well by comparison. If you remove yourself from a sinking ship, you may find your reputation drowning in a torrent of resentment and contempt, which would seem to me to be inviting grief, not saving yourself from it.
If the example above is truly as bad and one-sided as the description implies, then perhaps the group of the offended party need to confront the individual, probably through the director. Community theatre has a perhaps greater sense of democracy, and the actions of an individual shouldn't be allowed to disrupt the function of a team to such an extent. Nobody's being paid to suffer here, so let's work to lessen or eliminate the cause of the suffering. Unfortunately the 'diva' syndrome you might expect of highly paid stars is often more prevalent in amateur theatre, which sounds like the root of the problem. But part of the problem may also be, as you say, 'no one in control is doing enough to stop it from happening'. That too is an unfortunate side effect of the community democracy.
I obviously base this on my own experience, but I would argue that a good deal of what earns an actor their reputation and gets them consistent work is not necessarily their talent, but their demonstration of commitment, right from the word go...from the audition, to being available and on time, to learning lines and routines and physical skills, to the director's vision, to working with the director and cast and crew in solid teamwork, to delivering the goods for your audience, to maintaining that delivery night after night, to maintaining morale in the face of tedium or personal clashes or physical challenges or or poor reviews or disruptive touring...etc etc.
I am sure there are many many actors with more talent than me; talent is a vague and fickle concept. But I know precisely the actors that are more committed than I am; they're the ones who even more consistently get work.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> crgwllms wrote:
> > Professionally, once an offer is officially made, there is a
> > certain number of days later after which you need to decline,
> > or accept and sign a contract...and then you're legally
> > committed. But yes, I think the show of commitment starts at
> > your first audition, if you take yourself seriously as an
> > actor.
>
> While that ideal may work in a purely theoretical world, in
> practice it's never going to hold up.
> Sometimes a production can go bad, no one in control is
> doing enough to stop it from happening, and all you're doing
> is baanging your head against a wall until you get a
> concussion. I'm not saying the production discussed here was
> like that - I couldn't say - but sometimes it happens. And if
> a show goes that bad, there's sometimes nothing you can do
> but pull out and save yourself the grief.
>
> G.
No, even though it may seem that way to the amateur ranks, the professional world is not a purely theoretical one!
What I said certainly DOES hold up in practice for the pros - and by extension, for anyone who wants to be taken seriously and appear 'professional'.
If a professional production 'goes bad', ie: contractual obligations are not met, there are legal grounds for either side to pull the pin. If it becomes apparent that due to artistic reasons the personnel is not fit for the task, it can possibly be negotiated that changes be made...however, remember the controversy and mudslinging that arose from Black Swan's 'The Drawer Boy' a few years ago..?
Of course, a professional engagement is different because you're being paid to be there. With that proviso, it's amazing what you can learn to put up with! (I heard it said about film actors' salaries that they do the acting for free...it's the WAITING that they get paid for. Probably similar to theatre - the money is not so much for the performance but compensation for all the other trials and inconveniences.)
But I don't think the amateur status of a production should relieve you of the need to commit. If it 'goes bad' despite you showing your best efforts, it may be unpleasant but you'll come out looking well by comparison. If you remove yourself from a sinking ship, you may find your reputation drowning in a torrent of resentment and contempt, which would seem to me to be inviting grief, not saving yourself from it.
If the example above is truly as bad and one-sided as the description implies, then perhaps the group of the offended party need to confront the individual, probably through the director. Community theatre has a perhaps greater sense of democracy, and the actions of an individual shouldn't be allowed to disrupt the function of a team to such an extent. Nobody's being paid to suffer here, so let's work to lessen or eliminate the cause of the suffering. Unfortunately the 'diva' syndrome you might expect of highly paid stars is often more prevalent in amateur theatre, which sounds like the root of the problem. But part of the problem may also be, as you say, 'no one in control is doing enough to stop it from happening'. That too is an unfortunate side effect of the community democracy.
I obviously base this on my own experience, but I would argue that a good deal of what earns an actor their reputation and gets them consistent work is not necessarily their talent, but their demonstration of commitment, right from the word go...from the audition, to being available and on time, to learning lines and routines and physical skills, to the director's vision, to working with the director and cast and crew in solid teamwork, to delivering the goods for your audience, to maintaining that delivery night after night, to maintaining morale in the face of tedium or personal clashes or physical challenges or or poor reviews or disruptive touring...etc etc.
I am sure there are many many actors with more talent than me; talent is a vague and fickle concept. But I know precisely the actors that are more committed than I am; they're the ones who even more consistently get work.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···