What happened to Committment?

There 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?

Hi 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

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.

Craig K Edwards wrote:
>
> 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.

Yes, but they are related. If there is no left to manage a club, were do all these 'actors' perform?? If an actor pulls out, then that often results in a cancelled show and where does that leave the audience or the club? I do believe that a lot of clubs are stuggling and may not continue because there is a lack of commitment from people to get involved with the management of the club.

Craig K Edwards wrote:
> 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 -

Why? Shouldn't the director expect some commitment from you when you come to audition? Otherwise, why should the director sit and listen when you'll just take off to audition for the next show?

My comments are really just to get a couple of things off my chest, and I do understand that most of us do this for fun, but we also have a responcibililty to the paying public that come to watch the shows. We should remember that we are performing for an audience and that NO MATTER WHAT, the show must go on.

Rob Tagliaferri wrote:
>
> Craig K Edwards wrote:

> > "Now I think putting the 'commitment' requirement at the stage
> > of AUDITIONING may be a bit harsh - "
>
> Why? Shouldn't the director expect some commitment from you
> when you come to audition? Otherwise, why should the director
> sit and listen when you'll just take off to audition for the
> next show?
>

Rob, there are sometimes many auditions on for shows at the same time. Most Perth clubs have a November/Dec season and they all audition at once. Should an actor be forced to chose and only audition for one and hope against hope they get it? And if they don't, miss out on doing anything at all for the next few months? I auditioned for a show not that long ago in which more than twenty five women auditioned for one role. Should all those women have forgone any other opportunity out of a sense of loyalty to a club they weren't members of, and a director they'd never met, because he deined to listen to them audition?

One other point on the topic of actors dropping out of shows because of ego. I have never dropped out of a show (that I can remember) so I can't speak for myself here, but there are many reasons that actors have to forgo committments, and in my experience only a very small number of these are ego related. I have never seen an actor drop out of a show I have been in because they don't think the production is good enough for them. I have seen actors drop out of shows because they decide a two minuet walk on is not worth the kind of time committment the director is asking of them, and to a certain extent I think thats fair enough. We all have families, jobs, friends, other things to be doing.

Dropping out when you know the show will fold without you is serious, but in my experience people almost always have a bloody good reason for doing so.

But there is an interesting question here. I am not a professional actor, so if I am in a show that is universally acknowledged to be complete crap, it doesn't really matter. But what if your livelihood depends on your reputation, and staying in a show will damage that reputation? I wonder if it's OK to drop out then?

Rob is referring to me.

I understand and sympathise with his frustration and anger.
Perhaps a fable should be told and please, there is no inference, reference, or bearing to any person, or situation, alive, deceased, or merely existing.


Good morning Â…Â…..

Thanks for the offer to help with the lines, itÂ’s much appreciated, however, things have degenerated so much, IÂ’m actually going to pull out today, which is I know, a dreadful thing to do at this late stage (two weeks before it goes up). To explain.

I think I may have told you about the lead actor and her shocking manner of arguing with the director on every point and correcting everyone else? Two weeks ago, it was obvious the play was in trouble, as she continually overrode the director and scolded the rest of us. Morale had never had the opportunity to build and the whole thing was turning into a distasteful chore.

Two of us, independently of each other could not attend a Sunday rehearsal and on the Monday night, we were challenged by a theatre member, who spent 15 minutes haranguing us about attitude and how we owed something to the members. It was insulting and rather like being addressed by an out of control teacher. Of course, the chap concerned was not remotely aware of the real problem, which the cast and crew quietly sat thinking about, durign the ill- conceived lecture.

One guy chose to leave and she did in fact quieten down for a few days. Things became normal and the cast began to come together – there was even humour in the air. I thought she’d seen the error of her ways, however, it turned out it was the after shock of an event outside the theatre, that had temporarily seem sanity return, for last night she let fly again.

She had no hesitation in telling the director that it was the worst time she’d ever had, she was not enjoying it and finding it extremely difficult. He had had us start with a gabble, which as you know, can be a bit of fun and I’ve found to be a good bonding mechanism. She told him she didn’t do it that way, as she learnt and gave her lines reacting to other actors. Then later, rehearsing on stage, she threw her dummy in the dirt every time somebody missed a word, saying she had to have the right cue – the exact word to know when to come in and so on and so on and so on.

The effect on the rest of us is catastrophic. It’s a difficult, although interesting play to learn – the language is stilted – possibly due to the English phrases and inflections that don’t rest easily with an Australian vernacular. She has, in effect killed the whole play - certainly for me, I don't have the right to speak for anyone else. Although we know most of the lines, the continual arguing and stopping is utterly confusing and after an hour or so of it, I find I no longer know where I am, in terms of lines, or blocking, let alone any pretence at acting.

Then the director will explain that we, or me, or whoever, is not blocking properly and doing things way too slowly. HeÂ’s quite right by that stage - but how could anybody under those conditions? And heÂ’s rightly panicking, as weÂ’re two weeks out and most of us now donÂ’t have the second act down, but of course, everyoneÂ’s spirit is broken, including his I suspect. One just stands appalled at the whole process, it has become a living nightmare and one just wants to get out. I canÂ’t even bring myself to pick up the script anymore.

I drove home last night and spent most of the night tossing and turning worrying about it all – after spending yesterday in bed sick and only getting up to attend the play rehearsal! I do this for fun, as a hobby and to learn about acting, unfortunately, I am learning nothing, there is absolutely no fun, creativity, or calm reason in the process and it has become a major source of worry and concern for me. The crazy thing is, if it was a work situation, I would have been to one of my directors and insisted that the person concerned was removed. Here, in an amateur situation, the rest of us continue to suffer and there is no escape, as the culprit is considered perfect for the part and very experienced.

The director wants me to attend an extra rehearsal tonight, presumably as I’m “not getting” it! I ‘m getting it alright, it’s just that as I mentioned earlier, I find it impossible to work under these conditions. Besides, the only time I have to learn my lines, is night time, so each extra rehearsal that we have, takes away another opportunity to learn the lines. Yet he’s right, in that we need extra rehearsals. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a damn good bloke, I like him and the rest of the cast and crew, but she’s out of control, and he has no hope of reigning her back in, so we’re all (including her, strangely enough), paying the price.

To me, although my experience is minimal, the only way to save it, is to put off the opening for another two weeks, however the diva then can’t do it. As for me, after wrestling with the decision, I intend to follow the sage advice given in the “Desiderata.” I guess I’m going to make myself the most hated person at the theatre and I do regret that, but I’m getting out. Life is precious and I would rather spend the time I have with my children and friends. Indeed, I’d have to say that at this very moment, I don’t ever want to see a stage again.
Greg Ross

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,

Rob Tagliaferri wrote:

>But there is an interesting question here. I am not a professional actor, so if I am in a show that is universally acknowledged to be complete crap, it doesn't really matter. But what if your livelihood depends on your reputation, and staying in a show will damage that reputation? I wonder if it's OK to drop out then?


In my experience, I've actually found it can work in my favour. Being seen to be the best thing in a crap show is actually not bad for your reputation. Punters and reviewers have usually been able to see where the problems lie, and an individual performance isn't necessarily tarred with the same brush. It can be tedious working on the show, or with particular cast members, but it is a testament to your own skill if you can still produce your best work under the circumstances. Directors also notice this, and it might mean offers of future work under better circumstances, if you get a reputation for giving your best no matter what.

If it's your own performance that is regarded as crap, then I guess nothing can help your reputation there. But that's as it should be, by definition. Try and work on what you can improve. and learn from the experience.



As to the audition argument, professional directors expect your showing up at an audition to be a commitment of being available. There is nothing worse for them (and you may be surprised to hear this happens ALL THE TIME) for an actor to audition when they already know they are NOT available to do the role. The actor might be seeing it as an opportunity to 'be seen' by a director, and they might feel that if they let the director know that they are busy with another priority then they won't be considered for this role. This is probably true, but it's far better to be honest about it than to conceal it and then reveal after an offer is made that no, you're not really available.
Directors don't just match actors to roles, they match combinations of actors to roles, and losing one from the mix can drastically alter the balance of what they see as a whole.
If you have a clashing commitment, ask whether it's still okay to audition...there is still value to you doing your piece for them, if it means you might be considered for something else down the track, or perhaps for a bit part that doesn't require full rehearsal. Or they might just say no, not this time, in which case they'll be pleased you didn't waste their time.

That's not to say you are bound in writing to forever remain available. You really MUST declare any non-availability upfront... sometimes you have some 'potential' clashes, some pencilled in dates from other auditions that you may not have heard about yet. It's probably not good to give the impression that you'll only accept this current audition if you miss out on something else...that this is a second or third or fifth best option...but really, I still recommend tactfully admitting any potential clashes and letting them know the dates when you envisage you'll know one way or another, so as to confirm your availability.

And between the audition day when you declare yourself fully available, and the day when you confirm your commitment after the offer has been made, there is still the likelihood that your availability will change. Directors understand this, and are understanding. Keep them informed and up to date of changes in your circumstance, and they will still recognise your commitment, even if it means backing out of the race.

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.



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.

lesson to 'divas' and 'prima donnas' everywhere:

shut the hell up and get on with the job!

or there may be no spotlight for you after all.... :)

Grant 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%]

Hi Rob,

I read your email and concur with the frustration.

I feel it may have as much to do with the number of clubs around these days as a general decline in people's attitudes.

Whilst one could harp on at great length about lack of commitment in life, I do note that since I began getting involved with community theatre about 15 years ago, there has been an explosion in the number of clubs and shows to choose from.

Add to that surfing the net, getting involved in multimedia productions, taking on a part-time job to pay for your mobile phone, and you can see how the competition has risen!

Perhaps if there were fewer shows in each clubs season, and more co-ordination between clubs to avoid overlap and repetition of the same show, there might be more 'stickability' among members.

And dat's me two bobs' worth!

Cheers,

PQ