[rocky] Professionalism killed the Rocky star

[jrising]

There was a fantastic discussion at the Rocky party about the state of the cast. The vocal consensus was this:

There's an undercurrent of over-professionalism at the show. In small but definite ways, the drive for professionalism stifles some of the fun of the show and makes working at it a chore. Because the show isn't as much fun, it isn't as good, and the audience has noticed. Both directors, theater 3, and Acid's absence were blamed for these problems.

It's so tough to disentangle real harmful effects from nostalgia. So, tell me: do you agree? Have we gained the world and lost our soul (or raised the bar and broken our backs)? The drive for screen accuracy can push us to do better, but if it drives out jokes and connecting with the audience-- if our performance just duplicates the film-- do we want it? The cast members used to work up the audience waiting outside before the show. Does anyone do that now? We have such a great group, and we can fix these problems, but maybe not without big changes.

Feel free to post anonymously or email me separately.

Comments

[catullus-5.livejournal.com]

First of all, some people have more issues with the show than others, and if the guy you get feedback from is someone who's left the show, you're much more likely to hear the bad side of things than the good. So take the feedback with a grain of salt.

Screen accuracy is in no way incompatible with having a good time and giving the audience a good time. For instance, no one tells Frank that he/she can't spray a water bottle over the curtain because that's not what's on the screen. No one tells Twinkie he can't act out a Dr. Strangelove reference because the real Dr. Scott doesn't do so. That kind of tomfoolery is great, and the audience loves it, and I've never gotten the impression it was frowned upon, as long as the movie doesn't become one endless string of gags. Screen accuracy is what you do the REST of the time. When you're not taking liberties, you ought to know all your stuff, like which hand to hold your prop in. Screen accuracy is a good thing. For the audience, it's the difference between paying money for a live Rocky cast, and paying money to see a bunch of punks goofing off. We don't have to be Nazis about it, but we should have high standards.

I think a performer's satisfaction and an audience's satisfaction contribute to each other. Yes, the audience has more fun when we have more fun, but it works the other way too. Are our crowds smaller than they should be? To what extent is that the luck of the draw, and to what extent is there something we could be doing about it? The claim that audience members are staying away chiefly because of low cast morale being evident on stage is, IMHO, a tad overblown. Last week, for instance, there was no shortage of performers and techies who (it appeared to me) were thrilled as always to be there. Not all, but most. Besides, it's not as simple as "the audience has sucked ever since X left the show" or "since Y took over" or "since Z didn't get cast" or "since Q started doing preshows." Frankly, giving back the ability to dance the Time Warp in an aisle, as the good Lord intended, would probably have a much stronger effect on the audience.

Not that there aren't a few beloved cast members who I wish would return. And I'm sure I'm not alone on this one. There are indeed ways in which morale could be higher, and that's one of them. For another example, costume techies (and many actors) miss having the basement. But concrete, identifiable solutions are few. I think those issues we may have are too vague and complicated to fix with a checklist of changes. But I don't think they're as severe as was claimed at the party, either.

[d-day.livejournal.com]

Well put.

[suitboyskin.livejournal.com]

Nobody is saying that screen accuracy is a bad thing or that our standards shouldn't be high. When screen accuracy get's taken to, as you say, that nazi-esque extreme that devotion to it becomes problematic. Personally I've always had a notion that there is A-list and B-list screen accuracy. I try to use this whenever I'm teaching someone a role. Knowing every last movement is not the same thing as being good as or really being able to sell your character.

A-List screen accuracy, to my way of thinking, is the big stuff. Knowing when your character reaches out to shake hands, when to start singing, your character's facial expressions etc. The stuff that if you don't know you really don't know the part.

B-List is the little tiny detail stuff that pretty much nobody but other Rocky-ites are going to notice. I may be biased in this regard as I'm one of the most dyslexic actors I've ever met but nobody can accuse me of not "knowing" my parts. Yes, learn which way Eddie spins when he starts to sing but not to the exclusion of knowing what makes Eddie tick. Knowing that he spins and when is more important to overall performance than which way he spins.

Maybe if we started teaching people their roles with this or a similar concept in mind then people would a.) feel less anxious about the true minutae, b.) will relax a bit and feel good about what they do know as opposed to sitting up nights worrying about whether Frank dresses to the left or the right and c.) wouldn't necessarily see "SCREEN ACCURACY" as such a daunting phrase.

[mals13.livejournal.com]

I seem to recall the directors mentioning that it wasn't just screen accuracy that they were being picky with. they also wanted us to make ourselves the character. I watch people copy what's going on, on screen, but I also get bored with that, because it really is just a copy. It's not exactly acting. Make that character yours. Love it, know it and be it. If you miss a blink here, or a spin there, it's not a big deal as long as you're in character on stage. The audience *can't* be looking at both the actors and the screen at the same time, so if it's not precisely screen accurate, it shouldn't be a big deal as long as you're in character and interesting to watch.

I think what the directors said about making the character yours was very important, but I honestly don't think that comment has been reflected in what's being asked of us nowadays.

[jrising.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything you've said. But a lack of concrete solutions is all the more reason to rile things up. There will always be naysayers and nostalgia, but an undercurrent of discontent needs to be aired or it becomes a constituent part of the environment and weakens us as a cast.

[mals13.livejournal.com]

I also think that the audience loses interest when they look forward to preshow timewarp and it's just something that nobody recognizes and so they lose momentum. Preshows are meant to get the audience riled up and excited for a great show, but when they can't even scream call backs cuz they just don't fit, or they don't really know the moves anymore because the timing of the song is off, then that brings down the energy and it's all up to whomever is doing monologue to really get them going again, and that's not an easy task at all.

[senor-don-gato.livejournal.com]

Well-put, and absolutely agreed. I miss the Roxy time warp. As an audience member (and as Magenta), time warp really was my favorite part of the show, but preshow time warp has become something awkward. Current audience members have said they miss the Roxy version. I think it was neat for us to try different versions, but now we see that it isn't working.

I've expressed this opinion to ... people ... although I don't remember who, and I don't remember if it was anyone who could actually enforce a change. I suppose I'll say something to Gary. You should, too, if you agree, eh?