Are there too many of us?
Tue, 29 Aug 2000, 04:38 pmWalter Plinge21 posts in thread
Are there too many of us?
Tue, 29 Aug 2000, 04:38 pmHi Thespians,
I have been pondering this quite alot lately. Could some of the problems which are plaguing some amateur/community theatre groups (eg: inadequate venues, low audience attendance, financial struggles) be occuring because there are too many of us?
Two or three groups could merge into one which would:
1. Increase the membership.
2. Increase the pool of skills, ideas, abilities etc.
3. Increase the audiences.
4. Allow the clubs to pool finances and resources towards upgrading or establishing a venue.
These new groups could be re-named to save any arguments and managed initially by a committee consisting of members of each group's current committee. Since many Community Theatre people are not necessarily involved with the club closest to them, I can't see location being a problem. People will travel almost anywhere to be involved in a show that interests them.
Why should three groups keep struggling when as one group they may thrive?
Does anyone agree?
Cheers,
Gill
I have been pondering this quite alot lately. Could some of the problems which are plaguing some amateur/community theatre groups (eg: inadequate venues, low audience attendance, financial struggles) be occuring because there are too many of us?
Two or three groups could merge into one which would:
1. Increase the membership.
2. Increase the pool of skills, ideas, abilities etc.
3. Increase the audiences.
4. Allow the clubs to pool finances and resources towards upgrading or establishing a venue.
These new groups could be re-named to save any arguments and managed initially by a committee consisting of members of each group's current committee. Since many Community Theatre people are not necessarily involved with the club closest to them, I can't see location being a problem. People will travel almost anywhere to be involved in a show that interests them.
Why should three groups keep struggling when as one group they may thrive?
Does anyone agree?
Cheers,
Gill
RE: In reply ...
Sun, 3 Sept 2000, 09:59 pmI totally agree with you there Gill.
What people mis-understood however was my suggestion of more productions was more to ease the fears in the minds of those troubled with nightmares of not being on stage in such a situation as companies merging.
If two companies joined there doesn't necessarily need to be a cut down in the number of shows. And what I am suggesting as it seems people assumed I was, is not shorter seasons, but simply more of them. A show runs for two, three weeks as is, I'm not saying cut them short for another show, all I'm saying is why does there have to be a two three month period between this and the next show?
With poolled resources, it might be possible to have more shows, perhaps picking up interest in the patronage, rather than doing it once quarterly, it could become a regular thing for local patrons. Do you get my drift? Instead of forking out twelve or thirteen dollars for a movie, they could pay (possibly) less for regular shows at the local theatre, watching a whole variety of shows.
As for the poolling of resources and the question in regards to this topic posed - I am aware of the friendly nature of WA's theatre network, I have often been delighted by the assistance from many of you. But as an option of poolling resources in a merger, more facilities would be on site, cutting down the need to drive all the way up to Joondalup from Jandakot (as an example) to borrow one item. Granted this would still be done occassionally, but, perhaps with a combined work force and facilities, this would become less of a necessity.
What people mis-understood however was my suggestion of more productions was more to ease the fears in the minds of those troubled with nightmares of not being on stage in such a situation as companies merging.
If two companies joined there doesn't necessarily need to be a cut down in the number of shows. And what I am suggesting as it seems people assumed I was, is not shorter seasons, but simply more of them. A show runs for two, three weeks as is, I'm not saying cut them short for another show, all I'm saying is why does there have to be a two three month period between this and the next show?
With poolled resources, it might be possible to have more shows, perhaps picking up interest in the patronage, rather than doing it once quarterly, it could become a regular thing for local patrons. Do you get my drift? Instead of forking out twelve or thirteen dollars for a movie, they could pay (possibly) less for regular shows at the local theatre, watching a whole variety of shows.
As for the poolling of resources and the question in regards to this topic posed - I am aware of the friendly nature of WA's theatre network, I have often been delighted by the assistance from many of you. But as an option of poolling resources in a merger, more facilities would be on site, cutting down the need to drive all the way up to Joondalup from Jandakot (as an example) to borrow one item. Granted this would still be done occassionally, but, perhaps with a combined work force and facilities, this would become less of a necessity.
- ···
- ···
- ···