Taking this to a new thread, from the directing forum post on Speed Rehearsals, found at http://www.communitytheater.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3174. The comment was made of variations in directorial and theater process, referring to specifically one director who blocks all the action before handing out scripts.

Originally posted by jayzehr Originally posted by theactordavid that one who won't hand out scripts until the blocking is done, so the words flow "organically" from the movement.  Which brings up the side question--if you're cast by a director with this philosophy, you didn't know it ahead of time and you absolutely don't want to work that way, are you justified in quitting?

Well, the key word in your question is "justified" I'd say. Actors can have objection to many things, including language, physical contact, theme and plot lines, and so on, all which they may not know coming in. And I suspect that as experience grows, we each know what to ask of the director and producer about the play and the production process specific to that theater. The justification for quitting a production is based solely on your own personal set of standards, and no one else's. But you have a responsibility to find out what you can as to how a different theater or director "works."

Each actor should feel fully comfortable with inquiring about such factors ahead of time.  And each theater company should be willing to explain their process and philosophy up front as well.

I always say at auditions that I will not bring a fully-formed "vision" to the rehearsal process, but expect all the actors to contribute and make substantial contributions to the development of the play's final realization. They're out there in the lights doing it, I need them to believe it's the right moment every second along the way, and not that they're doing it because the director says so.  I also tell them that as the director, I reserve final word and may override their ideas, but I explain why when I do so they understand.  I also tell them that the first couple weeks of rehearsal will be spent at the table, reading and discussing, trying to get a handle on the story and the characters before we stand it up, so we know who these people are and why they do what they do.  It's different than most CT's I've ever been involved with, but most of those who've been with us have a great time in the end.

And I've never had anyone quit on me, although there have been times I wish they would.

Shoot!  I addressed this on the other thread!  Quitting is so personal.  It's hard for another person to judge whether it's "justified"...I don't think it's really even fair to try.  It all comes down to your personal life philosophy.  I'm not a "quitter", but that has earned me some pretty unpleasant experiences.  But those were my choices and I'll live with them.

Sounds beaut David!

The concept sounds interesting and I would like to be an actor in a show like that, however as a director it would give me ulcers taking time away from the actors working on their lines.  I just finished directing a run of "the Best Man" by Gore Vidal and would really have loved for my cast to have at least another week to have worked on the lines.  The show is very character and word driven without much action.  It was important to have both an insight on the character (which the new method would accomplish) and a solid grasp on the lines (which can't be done without a script in their hands).  At the very least this new method gives me another directorial tool which may come in handy at a later date.

Originally posted by theactordavid .....I don't think I've ever been in a show where one more week would not have been welcomed,  regardless of what everyone thought of the readiness level. But I think every show I've ever been in, everyone wanted to do it one more week at the end of the run. Now.... what can we learn from all of that??