Talk:Community theatre

Amateur Theatre, in the UK at least, fills an important gap in what the professionals can do. We have the advantage of numbers. Professional companies are often limited by the amount of cash that is available to pay their company members so plays that have small casts and small back stage crews have come to dominate. Amateur companies, whose actors work for love rather than cash, can put up large casts. Because of this some of the older plays with their casts in the twenties and thirties get an airing. Amateur companies also have the advantage that as their actors and producers come from walks of life that are not totally wrapped up in the theatre they will bring a different view to a production that may not occur to the professionals. Throughout the UK there are top-notch amateur companies such as the People's Theatre in Newcastle upon Tyne and the Questors Theatre in Ealing, West London,(i.e. the Little Theatres) who put on a very high standard of production. Within their ranks there are numerous professional actors (many of whom are resting.)who have to hold their own against the acting talent from other professions. All of this makes the amateur theatre scene a vibrant part of the overall British Theatre set up.

redirect

"amateur dramatics" redirects here, but then is stated to be a different thing. What's that all about? Totnesmartin 23:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks to be a recent edit. There's a discussion on whether the two ideas should be merged. Mootinator 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't be merged with 'amateur' theatre. In the UK there is a clear distinction: community theatre has its own set of professional practices and is not the same as 'amateur' theatre.

Amateur drama suggests 'am-dram' local theatre groups: 'community drama' is certainly not that

In the UK community theatre is a branch of professional theatre which specialises in involving people from communities. It is not at all the same thing as amateur theatre.

This article contains zero references or third party sources. It is clearly biased towards an amateur performer's perspective and full of contentious statements. As a performer and theatre critic I can say clearly that it is not the case that many professional performers begin in an amateur or community context, and it is certainly not the case that the only difference in amateur and professional theatre is whether performers are paid or unpaid. I have, therefore, removed these statements. In actual fact, professional performance artists (actors, directors, writers and producers) can study for anywhere between 3 - 8 years to achieve professional skills and qualifications. They work hard to earn the right to be called professional and to be treated accordingly. The difference in the standard of work is huge. There is no comparrison between amateur and professional theatre, and every academic article, journal, encyclopedia or critical review reflects this. (Moviefreak26 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Just Dreadful

This is a very cranky rant, not an encyclopedia article. I have just added a small reference to the Little Theatre Movement in the US, but that should not be taken as fulfilling the requirements that this article be properly cited. Someone with knowledge and source material had better take this article in hand, possibly for a total gut and rewrite. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

i agree this article fails. its mostly some jerkoff windbagging about theatre in the uk. 79.75.174.243 (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrible!

Suggest delete or completely re-write. See the article on amateur theatre as well. As many people have rightly pointed out, amateur and community theatre do not deserve such windbagging and unsupported praise. Why doesn't wikipedia concentrate on real, professional theatre articles instead? (129.96.252.38 (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC))