[Matthew Winn]

From the "Prick Up Your Ears" thread:

This idea that shows should have previews really annoys the hell out of me - ok two or three days fine, why is there any need for a show especially a show like this where there is no real technical issues and no sweeping choreography need 'Two Weeks' to get sorted, the 3/4 weeks in rehearsal should have been plenty of time!

Me too.

(What follows is a general comment, not directed at this production.)

It's worth thinking about the film industry for a moment. When films are made they're shot over-length and then shown to a trial audience to see how the work goes down with real people. It often turns out that a scene the writer thought would be exciting drags when in front of an audience and so needs to be edited down or cut completely, or it may be that some essential part of the story doesn't come across well and scenes need to be rearranged. The idea is that you can't truly know how an audience will respond to something until you have a genuine audience, so you try it out with a preview audience first so you have a chance to put things right before the finished product is released.

Theatre previews should be used for the same purpose. They're a chance to try out new or changed writing in front of real people to see how those people respond. If a scene intended to be hilariously funny is greeted with silence punctuated only by the occasional thump of audience members hurling themselves from the balcony in despair then it suggests that changes are required. If the creators are really lucky everything works brilliantly and no changes are needed. But that almost never happens.

The point here is that previews in the theatre are not rehearsals, any more than they are in the cinema. Everything that can be made right without an audience should be right by the time the first audience is used, not only because anything else is an insult to the paying customer but also because you can't judge how the audience will respond to the writing when the show keeps getting interrupted by the cast forgetting their lines and the set becoming jammed. Far too often we see "preview" being used as a label to justify lack of preparation, and with routine productions of established scripts there's not really any justification for having previews at all. Previews are for checking the things that can only be checked with an audience present. Nothing else.

With new or substantially altered writing I'd allow a week of performances for trying out in front of an audience; with established writing I'd allow a day at most. Assuming the script isn't a complete disaster in need of a total rewrite, after that the show isn't in previews no matter what the production itself claims, and if what the audience is getting feels like a rehearsal then they should get their money back.

(And before anyone says "but you don't know how difficult it is": I do know how difficult it is, but from the point of view of the audience that's not my problem. It's the job of the people working on the show to make sure everything that can be ready before the audience comes in is ready, and if they can't do that then they should probably find other employment.)

[Laughingmonsta]

Couldn't have put it better Matthew!

[Job]

Audiences for previews should not be charged so highly. If the preview's a glorified rehearsal, charge only a nominal fee for admission and you have some right to 'get it wrong' up to a point. But London preview prices are normally astronomical, with only a token reduction from normal rates, so it's only reasonable that such productions should be open for judgement and comment. The paying public's the paying public, after all.

I attended one late preview production last year when one actor in particular barely knew his words. He presumably didn't regard it as a performance, though, so wasn't bothered. My bank balance and I saw it differently.

Job

[Lynette]

With the RSC I've been to loads of previews - I think the Tennant Hamlet I saw was v early in the run and I was prepared for some warming up [ and indeed booked it for London only to be foiled by his back injury] but it was word and movement and technically perfect. I wouldn't expect anything else from them or anyone else.

There are open and paid for rehearsals [ not the RSC ] which can be ropey - I remember seeing a rehearsal at Covent Garden of a ballet and the lead ballerina yelling out when something went wrong for her. Very amusing in fact but it was a rehearsal , cost a fraction of the price for a show and there again, I saw a rehearsal there of Madame Butterfly and it seemed like no one had told the soprano that it was a rehearsal, she was so stunning and all the cast raised their game to match.

In my book, a preview is a proper show, proper length and so on, and might be cheaper in the West End to get the word of mouth going. It is to get the punters in and let them have a bargain. The performance of The Drunks that I saw was billed as a preview and cost less than the other shows but never before have I seen at the RSC in a preview, a hitch like there was or such serious over running.

But I wouldn't have minded at all if it had been any good, would I?

[josh]

Matthew, I normally find myself agreeing with everything you say, but here I disagree with you. I think there are two issues being mixed up - is it fair to charge people extortionate "full price" amounts for previews of a show that isn't 100% ready (no), and then is it alright for previews to not be a fully finished product (I would say yes).


I certainly agree previews should be sufficiently reduced! But that is not the fault of the actors/directors etc - the fact is once a production comes out of the rehearsal room and meets an audience, it changes. And there is nothing that you can do about that, it is the nature of theatre.


" Previews are for checking the things that can only be checked with an audience present. Nothing else."

So that's pretty much everything then?!

[Poly]

I have never seen a preview that wasn't the proper show.
On the other hand, in all the cases that I have seen a production more than once, the show has changed throughout its life, not just at previews. (Since Tennant's Hamlet was mentioned, I know of at least one - minor - script change that happened after press night). The point is that the show evolves, previews is the nominal time when it changes most, but that never stops.
Would you complain if a show changes after you saw it (as it does)? On the other hand, in professional theatre companies, the previews are not a lesser show.

[JonnyBoy]

Here's a quote I just found relevant to this discussion.
'Off to beautiful Brighton today for another week of previews'
It's from the Twitter for Prick Up Your Ears. So, some people in the show obviously are treating the touring places for the play as 'previews' to the 'proper' West End run.
To me, the play I saw at the Lowry was a finished product and was perfectly fine. I accept that the show will evolve over shows; this is only to be expected, but to call such shows on the pre-West End tour previews is rather annoying. We're either seeing the show as a finished piece or we're not. If they are being treated as previews, it should be printed on the ticket as such and added to all the advertising that goes with it.

[Matthew Winn]

Matthew, I normally find myself agreeing with everything you say, but here I disagree with you. I think there are two issues being mixed up - is it fair to charge people extortionate "full price" amounts for previews of a show that isn't 100% ready (no), and then is it alright for previews to not be a fully finished product (I would say yes).
I certainly agree previews should be sufficiently reduced! But that is not the fault of the actors/directors etc - the fact is once a production comes out of the rehearsal room and meets an audience, it changes. And there is nothing that you can do about that, it is the nature of theatre.

I expect any actor deserving of the work should have the experience to be able to get their performance in order pretty quickly. Half a century ago it was common for new shows to have around six previews. Bog-standard revivals of existing shows had less. A show that was felt to be particularly difficult and likely to need extensive changes might get two weeks in front of preview audiences before the press were invited. And the theatre people of the day managed just fine. Fifty years later and we see unimaginative productions of well-established scripts given four or five weeks of previews during which the audiences are expected to put up with performers who haven't learnt their lines or sets that don't work properly, as if the paying customers have no right to demand anything better.

It should not take a competent professional a month of previews to reach an acceptable standard, and especially not when the script is graven in stone. Yes, performers (and directors) may continue making minor adjustments for several weeks following the first performance, but after the first week everyone should already be good enough not to have to label a performance as a preview in order to defend shoddy work.

" Previews are for checking the things that can only be checked with an audience present. Nothing else."

So that's pretty much everything then?!

No, it's pretty much nothing. It's a poor actor who lacks the experience to have a pretty good idea how a particular way of reading a line will come across, even without the audience there to provide feedback. If I see a first preview of a new show I can expect that some parts of the script may not work. If I come back a week later I can expect that I might see substantial changes, and if a new show is undergoing such changes I can accept that some of the cast may be struggling with rewritten scenes that they were given only a few hours earlier. But I don't expect to see actors who can't turn in a professional performance without needing the customers to take them by the hand and lead them to it.

[Silverjaime]

"It should not take a competent professional a month of previews to reach an acceptable standard, and especially not when the script is graven in stone. Yes, performers (and directors) may continue making minor adjustments for several weeks following the first performance, but after the first week everyone should already be good enough not to have to label a performance as a preview in order to defend shoddy work."


I totally agree. Having been to a number of previews ( simply because of dates that suited etc.) I can say I've only seen a couple that were ill-prepared. I know a few actors and one in particular holds the view that 'preview' night or not, if he's performaing in front of a paying audience then it's opening night.
As for actors only getting the changes in script that day - how about last year's Glengarry Glen Ross where one of the actors pulled out a couple of days into the show and the role was re-cast - to great effect I might add - with the new actor and all the cast having just a day or two to prepare together! And with Mamet's rapid-fire dialogue to get right I'm sure it was pretty hairy at times in rehearsal! However, I didn't hear any hesitancy or trip-ups in anyone's performance on the night I went, just 3 days after the recast.
I think it's called being a professional actor.