being currently involved in a production where just about everyone has wanted to quit more than once including myself, I'll tell you what kept me there, the other volunteer actors who were giving their time and gas money to make this work and how unfair it would be to them to add a new unprepared cast member on top of everything else that is making it horrible. So we are all trying our best to just have a good time and try to put on a decent show despite the director.

Originally posted by theactordavid Originally posted by eveharrington So we are all trying our best to just have a good time and try to put on a decent show despite the director. Okay, so now this tangential redirection:  in your attempts to "put on a decent show", would this include putting on the show you "know" is best, even if it goes against direction?  That is, where is your (the actor) responsibility: to the audience, or the director? If blocking is "wrong" and action is "wrong", etc., at what point do you feel it is proper to go against the director and perform as the script requires, which is to say in support of the story the playwright has written?

It is attitude, and a complete lack of respect for the actors and the time and effort they are putting forward. The problem (I think) is that this particular director has wanted to direct this particular play for at least ten years and her "vision" is so set in her mind that she is micromanaging everything to the point that there is almost no room left for the actors to create anything. The best way to sum it up I think is to tell you that she stopped us numerous times during the very first read-thru to give us line readings. Actual, "no, say it like this" line readings. At the read-thru. She also feels free to cut and add dialogue at will, which I am personally very opposed to and even uncomfortable with.

Originally posted by sconjott . challenge them to explain their interpretation and do whatever is necessary (within reason, and that includes starting a screaming match) to get them to listen to your interpretation.

Well, if an actor started a screaming match with me because they didn't like my direction they wouldn't have to worry about quitting. They'd be out of the show. Life's too short. I don't care what the guy cleaning the toilets thinks. That'd probably be me anyway.

And as far as the original point, going to a read through and having the director give extensive line readings is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about way back when actordavid took my comment to start this thread. In that case it seems completely reasonable to drop out at that stage of the process. No way is the director going to want me in their show if that's their approach because there's no way I could remain positive. Let the director recast the part with someone who doesn't mind working that way. And if an actor felt that way about me as a director, I'd want them to leave as well. I don't know what everyone else's experience is, but in mine there are people who drop out at the start of community theater shows all the time. I don't actually see anything wrong with that. I had an actor drop out once because he was getting "ominous vibes about the show." I had no problem with that at all, I don't want somebody in the show who already isn't happy at the very start.

If you are going to quit, do it as soon as possible.  I quit directing an interactive murder mystery (semi-scripted by us), because our usual director was undermining my direction with the actors.  I was definitely less involved in the next show.  (Lights and only lights!).  We had one or two actors quit the show I was directing.  One had personal problems.  In hindsight, I think we did not make it clear enough to the cast that it is the nature of this type of interactive show not to be fully scripted, and therefore there are no lines as such to learn.  People were trying to make it into a very short play followed by a party, when actually to be interactive there would be no break between the "play" and party.