[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

[grypes.livejournal.com]

I'll make this short to avoid appearing vitriolic.

I've never seen anyone who actually brought their issues to the leadership have bad luck with it.

I don't disagree with the etiologies that "Jimmy & Co. (LLC)" came up with in entirety.

You assume that I'm specifically speaking against Jimmy in all this. I think Jimmy is thinly veiling his personal discontents by posing as an unbiased figure head (for the second time by my count but I wasn't counting til just now).

Crying foul is exactly what it sounds like. Speculating whether it's the best way to be doing things in an organizational structure that is NOT a democracy is foolish. You don't apply for a job at a coffee shop and complain about steam burns or apply for a waitstaff position and complain about being on your feet all day. You also don't volunteer to be part of a theatre company prided on it's professionalism in comparison to it's peers and presume to question it.

If you decide it's not for you... go home.

The debate is in the public forum yes. I'm all for that. What I'm not all for is the fact that one person is representing a group of unnamed people who have these discussions in private. It's bad form. If people want to have a discussion go to the directors and give them the opportunity to pose the question in a public forum.

Presuming I'm attacking Jimmy directly is a foolish assumption.

[jrising.livejournal.com]

I don't mean to appear unbiased, but I do think that this can act as a fairly unbiased forum for what I think is an important discussion. I don't think it's the only place that discussion should take place-- I plan on talking to the directors about everyone's comments (the strongest of which is that things are going very *right* with the show), and being clear about who said what so I'm not representing an invisible group. I hope reading other people's comments helps everyone develop their thoughts too and bring them to the directors and to their own attitude to the show independently. It's certainly helped me improve my understanding of the situation.

At the same time, this isn't in any way the public FBC forum. I didn't propose a public discussion, but that's what happened. I'm glad for it. I don't want to change what FBC *is*, but I do question parts of how it functions.

[grypes.livejournal.com]

Actually proposing a public discussion in your blog is exactly what you did.

When you get on live journal and present the opinions of a bunch of anonymous people who had a discussion at an after party about "the state of the cast" and then ask anyone and everyone to reply to a series of questions is exactly what proposing a public discussion is.

[suitboyskin.livejournal.com]

The tone of aspects of your post was what I was refering to as vitriolic. It wasn't a foolish assumption on my part so much as it was a reading of what you'd written in a forum where intonation and nuance are difficult to convey.
If attacking Jimmy was not your intent or if the post came off as snarkier than you intended it to, that's fine, but my reading of your last post was a perfectly reasonable one.

My assumption that you were speaking out against Jimmy stemmed largely from the fact that you have, both initially and in your rebuttle to my last response to you, a.) mentioned him by name and b.) then proceeded to rattle off suspicions about his possible motives and a general sense of frustration and contempt towards his actions. If I misread it as more of an attack than you meant it to be then I can accept that and I'm sorry but, but to claim that my take on the situation was somehow a completely erronious assumption on my part is, well, foolish.

You've made it pretty clear that the fact that this conversation is happening at all in this format greatly annoys you. Both the tone and content of your posts here have conveyed that. Apparently though, your posts didn't accurately convey your thoughts and it was not your intention to single out or attack Jimmy directly. These sorts of miscommunitations happen all the time even between the cleverest of people.

[grypes.livejournal.com]

No it was definitely intended to be snarky.

Yes I question Jimmy and his possible motives. Yes I disapprove that he takes it upon himself to make public forum discussions and appoint himself a representative in such a way. He's operating like a politician would. I don't like how politicians work.

It wasn't an attack against him though. It's a disapproval of the approach. If it was an publicly displayed group they'd all be bearing my critiques. Due to Jimmy's self appointment as spokesperson, however, he gets to bear the dual brunt of both my disapproval of the surprise public forum and my disapproval of the impromptu meeting that spawned it. However none of it is personal.

My posts certainly accurately convey my thoughts. As long as no one is reading between the lines.

[jdub0014.livejournal.com]

I don't know, I just don't understand how what Jimmy's done is so bad. Or, rather, the approach he has taken. Maybe I don't know Jimmy well enough to hold much clout, but I do think that his intentions are less manipulative than you are implying.

I do see Jimmy's approach as an easy way out - a way to remain "the good guy" in a very controversial situation, but I think you may be making him out to be a bit more calculating than he was meaning to be.

I could be entirely wrong. But you could be wrong too, right? ;)

[grypes.livejournal.com]

It's just bad form in general. It appears very subversive. This is also the second time he's taken it upon himself to initiate a dialog like this. If theatre groups were run like democracies where everyone gets fair say and everything flows equally amongst all involved then it wouldn't be a big deal.

It's not though. There is a hierarchy in place. If there is a general feeling of discontent amongst the cast the proper course is to bring it to the director first. Run it by him and then offer to open a public discussion. Presuming to do so looks bad.

That's my problem with the approach. As for Jimmy himself... he seems nice. We haven't talked much. But over the course of this discussion I've watched him pick his words very carefully.

If you go through and just read through his comments he makes a lot of comments in question of the directors including but not limited too "(in response to Ella saying she blames Gary)Lots of people do. I'm sure he doesn't mean to have that effect... but if it is him, then we just need a new director." and "We don't need a micro-manager; we need a champion."

I've been floating through the New England rocky community for a while. I don't often rattle of how many years because I don't count. I haven't been involved in any cast but FBC but I've interacted peripherally and been close to people deep within other casts.

A lot of other casts with weaker leadership structures have change of directors due to a mutiny. I've seen mutiny attempts in FBC before. I'm not directly accusing (the same way Jimmy isn't directly protesting) but this whole thread has a lot of undertones.

I could be wrong. However I'm more likely to move now and be wrong than wait around until it's too late for it to matter if I'm right.

:-)

[jrising.livejournal.com]

I have neither any interest in a "mutiny" nor do I think there's any need, but thanks for thinking me capable of it. I'd like to think that the thread diffused a couple "undertones" around the cast, and I have mostly Alex and various alumni to thank for it.

[grypes.livejournal.com]

I never claimed belief of capability of success, just consideration of possibility of attempt

[suitboyskin.livejournal.com]

I could point out that I neither assumed, nor implied that your attack was personally motivated or that you harboured any ill will towards Jimmy as a person at all. However, this would involve prolonging this discussion which seems to only be serving to make you defensive and both of us less civil than I'm sure we'd like.

I just don't see this going anywhere besides a lengthy, sardonic back-and-forth argument which, between two such pompus, long-winded cynics as ourselves, would be obnoxious and something that nobody would wish to see.

Seriously, our friends would, in all liklihood, be forced to decend upon us and slay us both in the night. And if the didn't go through the proper channels to do so would simply result in mass hysteria.

[grypes.livejournal.com]

fair enough

[g-w-s.livejournal.com]

There are proper channels through which friends can be slain?

That's AWESOME!

=)

[jrising.livejournal.com]

We don't call ourselves professionals for nothing. FYI, we also do contracts.

[suitboyskin.livejournal.com]

Umm....no....that would be....*fuck what's that word..* wrong! Yes, that's it, wrong.

By-the-by, who are you? You're one of the few who's name I didn't recognize.

[g-w-s.livejournal.com]

Greg. Random audience member. Pleased to meet you. :)

[tomsfoos.livejournal.com]

I think I know you