Are there too many of us?

Hi 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

Being purely pragmatic, you are probably absolutely right, ... however, for several reasons, I think you would find that in less than 5 years the no of groups/clubs would be up around the same level as now - quite a few of the groups around have been formed as offshoots/breakaways from older established groups. Only some of the reasons given are ..
* not enough seasons to cater for aspiring
actors/directors
* conflicts over what "type" of theatre should be
produced (many new groups are formed
specifically to "do" more
modern/radical/relevant/confronting or etc
theatre
* Common or garden personality conflicts over the
running of the group/club.
I suspect that having only a few "Super-clubs" would mitigate against the variety & diversity which makes the Community Theatre world vital & interesting.
BarbZ

No, I disagree, after all, less clubs means less shows, and less shows means less roles... Ooh I'm having nightmares!!!

Or do the nightmares relate to watching "Buffy" trailers just before donning the PJ's?

Gill

I don't know that less clubs is truly the answer - but definately pooling resources should be looked at more closely.

Some clubs have fantastic wardrobes and others props and sets - maybe a network of sorts should be set up whereby clubs can share these resources. And I don't mean only the physical stuff, but some of the talented techies out there as well.

:-) Tracey

Ah, fewer shows of better quality performed in a warm, comfortable theatre with huge audiences... now that is the stuff my dreams are made of!

I don't know that there are too many of us.
What I do know is that we ARE guilty of doing too much of the same thing ALL THE TIME!!!

You know, maybe if we actually gave our audiences a little bit of CHOICE and VARIETY in our repertoire, maybe we'd be able to capture them?

We get few enough 'interesting' productions a year as it is thank you very much...

Sorry, just happened to trigger one of my major bugbears.

Besides, I have to agree with Jarrad.
Fewer clubs = Fewer productions = Fewer roles for me!

Paul Treasure

(There Jarrad, never say that I don't back you up on stuff!)

Hey everybody

I agree with you 100% Paul. Some good alternative theatre is the way to go. I don't know if this is what you meant specifically but perhaps a few (youth?) companies along the same lines as Blak Yak would insert a bit of variety into local theatre. Not to say that local theatre is boring at the moment, far from it. But alot of people that I know appreciate the 'different' plays that get put on now and again. (phew, almost dug myself a great big hole there...)

This would attract a new crowd to theatre but would not necessarily mean that the old clubs would loose members. They'll always be a crowd for more traditional theatre. I shall go now before i start digging again....

tidy

Hey Paul, long time no hear!

I agree, the variety in a lot of theatres can be a bit dull. A lot of places will only consider putting on a show if it's guarenteed an audeience and the audiences therefore only get exposed to the more popular and commercial type of show, and so that's the type of show the theatres will put on.
It's a vicious circle.
More theatres=more plays=more parts, but I know that I haven't been tempted into auditioning for anything local in about 18 months.
And by the way, e-mail me you bastard!
Dingdong

Hey Ding Dong!

I know Jane gave me your address, but I've misplaced it!
How's about you email me...
paul.treasure@defence.gov.au

And you didn't come and see 'Windermere', ya cow!
Then again, neither did most people that contribute to this site...

Have a couple of projects up my sleeve that may interest you.

Hopin' to hear from you soon

Your Little Treasure,
Paul

PS My apologies to everyone else for posting a personal message.

I was having this discussion with someone the other day.

What would happen if we joined up a few clubs? Put some shows on in a comfortable theatre... all the rest.

So far everyone seems to be saying less productions less roles.
This doesn't have to be the case.

Curtin University has been running lunch time shows for a while now.. years in fact.

The way this works is every week of University Semesters there is a production. Different students putting on a great variety of productions.

Because some theatre companies join doesn't mean they can't still put on more productions. Think about it. Most companies put on four or five shows a year, right?
With more facilities, better fundrasiing organising - more people working for the same cause - audiences from both or all companies coming to see.. is it not possible twice the number of shows could be put on, just with better facilities and backing... more centred support from both community and company.

I think this is a very viable option.

As for putting on "alternative shows" Well there is another thing. To be honest.. the age range of audiences I have seen at a lot of community theatre tends to be toward Fifties and higher. Not saying they wouldn't be for new things.. I think they may be a little more edged toward the traditional play.. so doing a mass exodus to Alternative theatre could have the very opposite effect and scare our audiences away, could it not?

Believe me.. I'm all for alternative theatre... roll on the nudity and the funny way out Star Wars references and let us enjoy it.. Just don't try shoving it down the regular theatre patron's throat other wise they won't be the ones choking, but your company's bank accounts might be.

What would be good is using the work of local writers such as Nick Miller, Luke Milton and every other budding author. Then we could showcase real West Australian talent some more.

Just my thoughts,

Anthony

Just a couple of quick questions?

Why would the merging of clubs increase the quality of productions? It would surely still be the same people creating the shows. And before everyone gets upset - I am not suggesting in any way that the quality of amateur productions is not good, just that the same theatre makers must equal the same quality - some excellent, some not so good.

Why would the merging of clubs increase the resources available? Surely they would be the same resources - only pooled together. In my experience, any club that I have approached to lend support with equipment, costumes, technical expertise, actors or just plain old bums on seats has always responded quickly and generously without exception. Maybe anyone who is having trouble getting resources through this wonderful network of theatres that we have, needs to rethink their approach. Asking nicely and returning the favour has always worked for me.

Why would the pooling of resources increase the number of seasons? Any director, actor, techie, set designer, choreographer, stage manager knows that the number one priority for any production is quality stage time. While less stage time may not necessarily decrease the quality of productions I can guarantee it will not increase it and probably produce some in house squabbling into the bargain.

While I think that the merger of resources and facilities sounds very attractive in theory, under closer scrutiny I think we are doing just fine as we are.
INDI

Hi Indi

> Why would the merging of clubs increase the quality of productions?

> Why would the merging of clubs increase the resources available?

> Why would the pooling of resources increase the number of seasons?

I think your questions are spot on! But you left one out.

Why has every consultant employed to review the performing arts industry recommend more mergers?

Mergers are not and never have been satisfactory solutions in themselves.

Cheers
Grant

Paul Treasure wrote:
-------------------------------
I don't know that there are too many of us.
What I do know is that we ARE guilty of doing too much of the same thing ALL THE TIME!!!

Sorry, just happened to trigger one of my major bugbears.

Hear Hear!!!
I'm with you Paul. A great deal of regular theatre goers are of course, members of other clubs. If they themselves have seen their own clubs production, chances are they won't go see it elsewhere. And the precious little audience that do get out and about to see amateur shows probably are less likely to see the same show more than once within 12 to 24 months. Of course these plays are dragged out frequently as they may be good plays and pull big crowds, but it couldn't hurt to at least space them some years apart. I realise that the clubs organise their seasons individually and clashes will occur, but perhaps biting the bullet and postponing that show and choosing another (as there ARE more than 8 or 9 plays in print or so I've been told) could be an option.
Alternatively, an annual 'Hotel Sorrento-a-thon' could take place with every theatre group staging a subsequent production of it in the same year. A special Finley Award could be given to the best one. Then the next year, it could be 'Lipstick Dreams' followed by "It's My Party and I'll Die if I Want To" and so on and so forth.

Hi Indi,

These replies to your questions are just my thoughts and in no way am I saying that I know what's best. I most certainly don't. I do think that there are so many great things about amateur theatre in Perth but I get irritated by little things like playing to an audience of ten in a horrible cold hall and am always pondering ways to combat this.

Q 1: Why would the merging of clubs increase the quality of productions?

I feel that with a larger group of people a club/director would have more options. As an example, if a club has only a few members who are experienced and keen to do sound and they are all unavailable a director needs to look elsewhere. More often than not several shows are running at the same time and most of the known and respected technical people are otherwise engaged. This probably sounds horribly elitist and not in the spirit of am-dram but... this may mean going with a beginner. I know that everyone has to start somewhere but chances are, without guidance, the quality of their work will not be as high.

I operated the sound for Cabaret (due to nobody else being available) and one guy who reviewed the show on this website said he only disliked three things about the show, one being a mistimed sound cue! (That's what you get for letting the choreographer near the sound desk).

Q 2: Why would the merging of clubs increase the resources available? Surely they would be the same resources - only pooled together.

When I wrote this I was referring more to the theatre itself. For example, a club is kicked out of their venue but has all that a theatre requires (seating, front of house furniture, lighting equipment etc). Another club is given an old building to do with as they wish but they have little money and limited resources to set it up as a theatre (as they have been using a community hall up until now). I just think that it would make sense for these two groups to merge.

Q 3: Why would the pooling of resources increase the number of seasons?

Unlike Anthony I am not particularly for more seasons, just better patronised ones!

Cheers, Gill

Insert smiley face here!

I 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.

Unfortunetly, back in the dark ages - when i was about 20 - there was the 80/20 principal, 80% were warm props and 20% would be backstage - but I think it is more like 0.2% will do backstage these days (are we atracting only actors?). I possibly think because we make hard work for ourselves, mounting a production, that when some new turns to have a go, the other horses who have been flogged to near death see this a big OUT for them to evaperate, thus loss of experiance and knowledge.
In most clubs it should be an easy task to put up a set or bump in, however mainly because of a lack of experiance we tend to make task bigger then 'Ben Hymn' and a lack of helpfull attitude on the part of Committees - but thats another story.

In most cases if we merge into super clubs our numbers won't increase, maybe for a short while we may more resources and money, but it will end up with the same few doing IT with less.

Clubs even Lodges who consolidate, don't get larger only shrink smaller and smaller. It is a numbers game - spread It around and It will find it's own level and market and/or close and another springs up - this is possibly more healthy - unfortunetly we have a lot of clubs who have been around for a lot of years with a closed door or mind "we all must stay together behind these four walls, because thats the way IT has been done for thirty five years and we are still here" attitude. But they become blinkered and have closed minds as will the super clubs further down down the track.

Great idea of having a central resource centre - but beleive me this can be a bigger nightmare and the politics - are well IT is all too hard!!!!!

Joe McCabe

Yes, I've always thought that there are too many of us. It won't change because everyone wants to go their own way and do things they can't get at the currently established clubs.
I can think of at least a dozen groups who have formed over the last few years, put on maybe three or four shows and then disappeared without trace - notable exception is Blak Yak.
I don't think there is an answer.

sure there are too many of us but if say everybody quit Id be the best paid actor in the state

There is never enough!

Acting is doing. We must do what we must - We need each other to act. Where ego is, acting fails - Clubs whom form for self satisfaction with fail. It took me 5 years to realise this and a solid training of course. Many moons ago I was a failure. I would perform for self satisfaction and fail. I would join every club and fail. But, now - I act.

Your friend

Norman