I QUIT! (is it okay?)
Printed From: Community Theater Green Room
Category: Producing Theater
Forum Name: Acting
Forum Discription: Q&A about auditions, character development and other aspects of the craft
URL: http://www.communitytheater.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3183
Printed Date: 5/16/24 at 3:05am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 8.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: I QUIT! (is it okay?)
Posted By: theactordavid
Subject: I QUIT! (is it okay?)
Date Posted: 5/17/08 at 10:36am
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 - 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.
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.  |
Replies:
Posted By: B-M-D
Date Posted: 5/17/08 at 11:32am
|
You certainly have a different directing philosophy than I do. But as an actor I'd at least be willing to try your method. As a director I'm of the mind to get folks on their feet as soon as possible. As in my day day job I hate meetings and I'd rather be doing than talking about something. I view time at the table in much the same way. But that's me and it's not to say the same ends aren't achieved, it's simply the road that's taken to get there. ------------- BD 
"Dying is easy, comedy is hard." |
Posted By: drose
Date Posted: 5/17/08 at 11:52am
| 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. |
Posted By: theactordavid
Date Posted: 5/17/08 at 11:58am
I came to it from "years" of cookie-cutter theater where the primary goal was to get off book, make your entrance, hit your mark, and exit. (I summarize) In discussions with other actors backstage, it became clear to me that the cast often had a different idea than the director of what the play was about and what the action should be. So I thought I'd try something new. |
Posted By: JoeMc
Date Posted: 5/17/08 at 7:25pm
|
Sounds beaut David!
I know I'd like to try the concept, with our next proposed production. As soon as I revive the Treasury from moth balls & get the money off to Stuart @ Lazy Bee. Rather than via a cheque.
The production is a Radio Show, titled the 'Big Idea' by Nigel Holloway.
Which would be great to apply your idea & see how it goes!
May be you should have it published?
G'donya Davo!
 [I have been trying to Quit for years, but still have the need for a smokeo!}  ------------- [western] Gondawandaland "Hear the light & see the sound! TOI TOI CHOOKAS {may you always play to a full house!} |
Posted By: jayzehr
Date Posted: 5/19/08 at 8:06am
How could you not know about language, theme and plot lines coming in? And if there is anything potentially objectionable that's not present in the sides, I feel as a director I feel it is my responsibility to make certain everyone is informed of that at auditions.
If we're talking community theater where you're asking people to volunteer I believe it's the director's responsibility to explain how she/he works at the auditions, especially if it's going to be an unusual process. People are coming to auditions and to community theater productions from all sorts of different perspectives and places in their lives. I don't think it's fair to tell someone like "So what if you're fifty years old and haven't memorized lines in 20 years. I don't give anyone a script until blocking is finished. You should have found that out before you auditioned." |
Posted By: pdavis69
Date Posted: 5/19/08 at 9:27am
|
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. ------------- Patrick L. Davis Fort Findlay Playhouse |
Posted By: theactordavid
Date Posted: 5/19/08 at 9:47am
|
Just to clarify - I'm not the director who doesn't explain up front. Nor do I set blocking before scripts are handed out. I just mentioned how I had read about (at least) one whose method is that way. As for not explaining script content and director/producer/theater practices in advance, let me only say I've been involved as an actor with some such groups, and so I am aware that it happens. The key word in jayzehr's reply is "responsibility", and I guess then that some directors I've acted for were not. Much like a regular job, where you can't simply settle for knowing you give 40 hours and get paid - you want to know what you'll be asked to do, and how much you get paid, and so on. That's all part of the interview process before you take the job, so there are no surprises. But that's not always the way it happens out here in way-off-off-off-off CT land, regretably. And Patrick, 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??  ------------- There are no small roles, only roles with a low line-load and minimal stage time. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com |
Posted By: B-M-D
Date Posted: 5/19/08 at 12:46pm
That whether one has had 3 weeks or 12 weeks of rehearsal, know yours as well as the other guy's lines, blocking and interpretation as well as the playwright's life story and intent of the script we always want "one more week before we open." Actors, we're so.....needy.  ------------- BD
"Dying is easy, comedy is hard." |
Posted By: sconjott
Date Posted: 5/25/08 at 1:01am
|
You auditioned, you were offered a role, and you accepted the role. Once you accept that role you agree to commit to that production. That includes participating in the rehearsal process. Now, I've never heard of a director expecting an actor to learn blocking before having a script in his or her hand, but as an actor I am more than willing to try different formats within the rehearsal process. Just as I would be happy to learn and try new characterization excercises. Not all excercises will be fun, not all will help you sculpt that Tony Award Winning character. So, is anyone justified in "QUITTING" for this or similar reasons?
NO!!!
You are in Community Theater, which means you shoud try to "LEARN" anything you can from the experience, and uphold the commitment you made to the rest of the cast, crew, and eventual audience. Now, if you have, honestly, tried the methods being pressed upon you and simply cannot do what is being asked of you, then YOU talk to the Director, or the Producing Director and/or Board Representative (if you can't work out the issue with the director). Finally, if the issue cannot be resolved to something you can all live with, thank the Director and Board Representative for the opportunity to be in their production, apologize for any misunderstanding/s, restate your issues (whatever they may be), and offer to help prepare a replacement.
As a director, if you are uneasy with my methods or have tried my methods and it caused you a problem in the past... Please, bring it to my attention. As a Director I had BETTER be able to work with you on this. However, if you simply don't want to try my methods... "Thank you for letting me know as soon as possible, there's the door, and NO I won't need your help preparing a replacement".
Great... my first post and I already sound like a "diva"...  ------------- There are NO small roles, only small actors... |
Posted By: eveharrington
Date Posted: 7/29/08 at 12:38am
|
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. ------------- "If nothing else, there's applause... like waves of love pouring over the footlights." |
Posted By: theactordavid
Date Posted: 7/31/08 at 9:13am
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? ------------- There are no small roles, only roles with a low line-load and minimal stage time. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com |
Posted By: B-M-D
Date Posted: 7/31/08 at 12:49pm
I don't think we know from this if it's the direction or attitude of the director that's in question here. From my experience it's usaully attitude. I've been in a few shows where the direction was horrible but the director was sweetheart and we still had good time albeit not such a great show. ------------- BD
"Dying is easy, comedy is hard." |
Posted By: tristanrobin
Date Posted: 7/31/08 at 3:06pm
There is nothing "wrong" in art ... only less-than-ideal choices.  Oh, geesh - I must have been in a teacher dimensional field.Sorry.  |
Posted By: eveharrington
Date Posted: 8/02/08 at 2:24am
|
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. ------------- "If nothing else, there's applause... like waves of love pouring over the footlights." |
Posted By: sconjott
Date Posted: 8/03/08 at 6:01pm
|
I'd say you have found one of those "Ethical Dilemas". I have had similar Directors, but not that staunch. Situations like this seem to take care of themselves after the fact. Unfortunately, this does nothing to help your current state of "Oh My God, who allowed this person to direct". I believe that you owe it to your audience to, if necessary, confront this director on thses choices... 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. As far as the "hack and slash" and the "oh wouldn't it be funnier if he said this?", attitude goes. Ask point blank does this director have written permission to alter the script. (You already know the answer) Then stand by copywright laws and contract agreements and refuse to take part in mutilating the authors work.
I'm guessing this is a fairly new director, who hasn't had much training as a director if any. Whatever the reason for this rather overbearing directing style, you may be able to help future casts and this director by pointing out some of these less agreeable directing choices. I know you're going to get a LOT of instant flack, but if you'll talk to your fellow cast members before hand they will be prepared to back you up. Just try not to let the whole thing devolve into an attack.
There's no pretty solution to a situation like this. If you try to fix it, it's going to get very VERY dirty. If you don't try, your audience may suffer.
Finally, we come to the real question... "I QUIT!!!... Is it OK?" I still have to say, "NO". You owe it to your audiences, your fellow actors, your Stage Manager, Costumer, Lighting Person, Orchestra, Box Office Manager, even the guy who cleans the toilets to give the your best performance. After the run, you may decide NEVER to work with THAT person again (and I'd be right there to throw you a party for THAT decision, but you have no right to punish the rest of the cast and crew much less the audience who had nothing to do with any of this directors short comings.
There are only 3 reasons I can think of to quit any show, 1) if there is some sort of abuse/harrassment, 2) if there are safety issues and 3) health issues (where doing the show threatens the life or well being of the person or persons in question). Even in those situations you have a responsibility to report those issues to the board for that theater. I promise you NO ONE would be subjected to any abusive/harrassing behavior or dangerous sitiations once it's brought to the attention of our board. As far as Health Issues are concerned, if that theatre is more concerned about the show than your health, don't just quit... Quit and run as fast as you can from that place 'cause it's got bigger problems than needing to replace an actor.
------------- There are NO small roles, only small actors... |
Posted By: jayzehr
Date Posted: 8/03/08 at 10:33pm
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. |
Posted By: ClintonHammond
Date Posted: 8/03/08 at 11:27pm
|
Life is too short to volunteer with people you can't stand.... ------------- Without actors, a techie is a person with a list of marketable skills. Without techies, an actor is just a goof, emoting alone in the dark. |
Posted By: whitebat
Date Posted: 8/28/08 at 11:47pm
| 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. |