One actor's performance divides a community

[dallas10086]

Late last month a reviewer gave a local theatre company what I thought to be a fair review of Measure for Measure: overall a mediocre production with a few shining performances but one huge flaw - the lead wasn't off-book for a good portion of the performance and read his lines from a notebook. The reviewer posted his review online and on Facebook, which included his opinion on how the lead's performance hindered the perception of the production as a whole, the director, the artistic director, and the company. Here's the link to the original article: http://clclt.com/theclog/archives/2012/04/26/theater-review-measure-for-measure#more.

The following morning the comment section under the review blew up. Everyone had an opinion: regular theatre goers, directors, other actors, members of the cast, volunteers, teachers, seasoned professionals, students - it was clear the theatre community was divided. Generally, one camp believed the performance should have been canceled, postponed, or an announcement made prior to the curtain going up stating the situation - the other camp believed the actor and/or company was brave and being risk-takers by going on as planned, in spite of the major problem. I've never seen such a lively or divided discussion among a theatre community - you don't see this kind of debate often played out in real-life, and it's one that I'm thankful to hear local drama and theatre teachers are using as a discussion point with their students.

My poor husband was witness to my exasperation to a few of the comments that, in my opinion, were juvenile and (hate to use this word but it fits) ignorant. One comment stated that people pay to go to performances to support an actor or company, not necessarily to see 'art' or an amazing performance (only if my kid is in it, sorry); another said that the criticism was because the reviewer hates the company (it's called 'critique' for good reason); the artistic director finally came out and said no one who hadn't seen the show had a right to an opinion, that they were viciously attacking the company, and that those who had voiced negative opinions were just waiting for something like this to happen so they could "stick the knife in and twist it." A few other comments included a teacher saying he hoped none of his students saw the performance because it would wipe out everything he had taught them Shakespeare should be. Some even used the situation as a plug to go support only good performances at other theatre companies in town (unfortunately from someone I respected...bad form).

So what do you think - did the company have a right to charge full ticket price without letting the audience in on the actor with script in hand? Should the community have been more supportive of the choice, rather than criticize the outcome? Does criticism raise the bar for theatre companies to do better? What would you have done in that situation?

(BTW, tried posting a link to the page of comments, which were unfortunately all under the Facebook link and not the article link, which didn't seem to work. I wouldn't dream of pasting 51 comments on here, many of which were lengthy.)

[MatthewShiner]

Unless it was part of the concept, it should have been announced.

It's amazing how quickly an audience will get you behind a performance if they are asked to be included in on the process.

[BLee]

IMHO: The only instance an actor should be "on book" during a performance is when an emergency has occurred and a non-understudy performer is taking that role, anything less is unprofessional. If this was a high school or even very small scale community theatre I might be more forgiving, but looking at the company's website they see themselves as a "premiere classical theatre". The review does state it is possible that this actor was a late addition, which would justify the need to have the script onstage. If this was the case a simple announcement would have been acceptable and cause far less uproar.

[dallas10086]

The review does state it is possible that this actor was a late addition, which would justify the need to have the script onstage.

From what I know of the casting personally, he was not a late addition and had been cast at the same time as the other actors.

[On_Headset]

The review does state it is possible that this actor was a late addition, which would justify the need to have the script onstage.

From what I know of the casting personally, he was not a late addition and had been cast at the same time as the other actors.

...oh wow.

One of the most difficult questions stage managers get asked, in my experience, is "So who's the best actor?", as if you can line them up and pick favourites. Some actors are harder to work with than others, certainly, but there are so many metrics and standards in play that it's basically an unanswerable question. The only thing we can really decisively say is "The best actor is the one best-suited to the role, show and director."

But this...

Ugh.

In all cases, without exception, an actor who can learn their lines is preferable to one who can't.

[maximillionx]

So what do you think - did the company have a right to charge full ticket price without letting the audience in on the actor with script in hand? Should the community have been more supportive of the choice, rather than criticize the outcome? Does criticism raise the bar for theatre companies to do better? What would you have done in that situation?

I think it was a mistake to let the show press in that condition.  I've seen and been a part of productions that have postponed and it's definitely worth while.  You avoid bad press, both from reviews such as this one, from social media and by word of mouth.  It's not an option for everyone though and that may be the case. This situation could be a lesson for this theatre company, both in procedure and perhaps hiring practices.

As for your second question, I think that we all struggle with this as thespians.  We want to support all our friends and peers, despite venue, company, budget, etc... but sometimes it's just not possible.

The facebook situation seems like a real cluster frak though - very unfortunate it had to go the social media route and that people took the tone you say it did.

Anyone been in a production like or similar to this? What did you do? How do you rate the production on your favorites list?

[loebtmc]

Is this a union show? That's actually a fire-able offense.

I did a show where the lead tried to hold the show hostage because he never learned his lines - we delayed opening once but used "Responsibilities of an actor" to fire him and replace him with someone who COULD learn the lines - ironically, the replacement's first two performances were with earpieces and lines stashed all over the stage, but even then it was a better show for his onstage partners to have the lines present!

[dallas10086]

No, this was not a union show, and the performance the critic saw was the second performance in the run. Which means there was an opening night performance which the audience sat through with the actor on-book.

Here is Director & Artistic Director O'Neill's response to the FB comments under the article link. IMO in his defensiveness he makes some far-reaching statements, and I can't help but wonder, if the tables were turned and he watched an actor in another local company perform with script in hand, would he be as supportive as he insists others should be.:

So, Perry didn’t like M4M, no surprise, I knew it… I could feel it coming. Yes, I had an actor on book. Yes, it was disappointing. There was no one on the planet as frustrated as I was. I was left with few options. Throughout rehearsals, the actor in question was working off book. Having trouble with the last big scene, to be sure, but working off book. Now, I have been in the same position, certain lines and scenes have kicked my a**, like I am sure many of you have experienced at least once in your careers. The actor in question has been in quite a few of my productions and no matter how shaky in rehearsals and always pulled through in performance, I wasn’t that worried, to be honest. To my chagrin, he informed me the afternoon of Opening Night, that he could not do the scene without the book. I was left with few options…. NONE OF WHICH WAS CANCEL THE SHOW. We picked what seemed like the best option at the time and hid it as best we could, knowing full well we weren’t really hiding anything. Let me repeat, there was no way in Hell, I was going to flush the hard work and efforts of the other fourteen members of the cast, down the toilet. So there, that’s the story… If you don’t like it tough, but that’s the truth.
Now, to all of the vultures out there, just giggling your perfect little theatre a**es off, really? Blowing off steam from your pompous points of view. Did you see the show, did you not read the entire review? Perry does not condemn every aspect of the show, but a whole lot of you, who couldn’t be bothered to see it do. You have all just illustrated what is wrong with the so-called theatre community in Charlotte. I have always suspected it, but you all have proven it. Ok, not all of you, but all you snipers and it is easy to tell who you are, just scroll up. Not one of you showed any concern for the actor in question, as in “Wow, man, are you ok? Is something wrong?” . Not an ounce of sympathy, just unadulterated glee at someone else’s failing. Wow, we are all in this together, supposedly, yet you people couldn’t wait to stick the knife in and twist it. It reminds me of “Shark Week” on Animal Planet, A swarm of sharks, circling, waiting for the thinnest sniff of blood and then attacking the injured prey. You are the ones who should be ashamed. You condemn what you do not know, or understand, or have no firsthand experience of. I bet there isn’t a one of you hasn’t faltered, on stage, or in life, yet you hide behind your righteous indignation and sneer at our attempt to overcome a difficult situation. You cheapen the efforts of the rest of the cast and crew of M4M, which you couldn’t be bothered to see. You use misfortune to try and hawk your wares. Charlotte has no theatre community, no sense of camaraderie, no mutual support network for one another. Folks do not leave a show and gather afterwards to discuss what they saw, how to help each other, support each other, no, to the contrary, they run back to their separate camps to dissect and criticize and gossip and bad mouth whatever it is they just saw.
Shakespeare Carolina has always been about taking risks. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we fail. But for us, it has always been about the journey, not the destination. Perfection is great, but it is often boring. We choose to not be boring. We choose to enjoy the trip.

[On_Headset]

You have all just illustrated what is wrong with the so-called theatre community in Charlotte.

...and any patience or goodwill I may have had just evaporated.

Yelling at your audience (even if your audience is being uncooperative) is never the solution to your problem. Ever. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever.

Shakespeare Carolina has always been about taking risks. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we fail. But for us, it has always been about the journey, not the destination. Perfection is great, but it is often boring. We choose to not be boring. We choose to enjoy the trip.

Wow, an artistic director who actually believes this self-indulgent tripe? (The journey is fine and well, but the audience--the people who generously provide for and fund your exotic, imaginative journeys--only sees the destination. If you don't care about the destination, then you have no right to whine and moan about the audience refusing to indulge you.)


In totally unrelated news, we need a new acronym to replace "M4M". ("SWM looking for actors for M4M. Must have own hair. Line memorization a plus, English accents to the front of the queue.")

[dallas10086]

(The journey is fine and well, but the audience--the people who generously provide for and fund your exotic, imaginative journeys--only sees the destination. If you don't care about the destination, then you have no right to whine and moan about the audience refusing to indulge you.)

I'll admit, you made me giggle with that one.

[nick_tochelli]

There is no such thing as bad publicity and if the AD wants to drag his company and cast through the mud to get it he has every right.

He just may never win the community back for taking them to task. He also should probably not let people know he only cares about the journey and not the final product he makes people pay to see. If that's the case, maybe he should just pay people to rehearse and never perform because the journey is all that counts.

[SMrose]

I was PM at a semi-professional theatre in San Francisco years ago.  No union cast but everyone had a contract and got paid.  One cast member was having an awful time remembering lines.  By tech rehearsal, we had a meeting: cast, director, theatre staff and the cast member was let go from the show.  The director steped in and took the role.  The cast member who was releaved from the show actually was releaved: I remember he harbored no ill feelings and knew it was best for the show.

[Rebbe]

I think the company made a mistake in charging full price and not letting the audience know the actor would be on-book.  By the director’s response, it wasn’t an active choice, as in “I would love to see this character read his lines from a notebook!”  It was a choice of last resort, a compromise made because he thought it was the best available option.   It seems to me the community at large had a right to be upset.  I’d be annoyed if I went to a play, and for no apparent reason, an actor was clearly on book after opening.  Part of the magic of theater, to me, is that people can memorize entire volumes of text.  Having an actor unable to do so take some of the magic away.  Other compromises could have been, as others have suggested, hiring a new actor who would have an excuse for being off-book, or extending Previews and postponing opening until the original actor could get the script down.  It seems like the director would have been better off admitting he could have made a different choice, rather than disparaging the audience and community.

I think criticism has a place in the theater world.  It can’t be taken too seriously, as each review is just one person’s opinion, but different opinions are valid and can be useful.  This review in particular was balanced, providing both positive and negative feedback on the show.  When we as theater professionals are vested in a production, we know what it’s trying to be, and that can stop us from seeing what it actually is.  We can watch a performance, and knowing the subtext and motivation discussed in rehearsal, enjoy what’s happening onstage, while the audience, without that background, is disappointed.  Reviewers sometimes provide a reality check on that, especially for new plays which might be modified before the next production.