Consequences

Its time to stop! Now. The amateur theatre community is doing itself possibly irreparable long term harm. I have been trying to secure sponsorship of the annual Finley Awards and have just taken a phone call from the people IÂ’ve been working with, to the effect of why would they want to get involved with that sort of back biting and viciousness, as who on earth would want to take the risk of being mixed up with that sort of publicity.

Dear Greg:
I fully appreciate the problem about the Finley sponsorships you are having, but I hope you are not suggesting that it is somehow the fault of actors expressing support for other actors who have been mistreated.
The four understudies did not cause this appalling mess - the MS Society representative did.

Not at all Doug, I was in fact, implored to post the email. However my thanks, youÂ’ve lightened the load of a heavy business and personal life, as IÂ’ve decided to just concentrate on helping out those productions IÂ’m personally involved in.
Cheers
Greg Ross

Doug???

I have personally worked with Dr Sutherland-Bruce, and he doesnt seem to me to fit with Doug. To me he will always be Douglas. I find it always better to err on the side of caution with a name that can be shortened. If he wanted to be called Doug he would have Dr Doug Sutherland-Bruce as his sign-in name.

Always remember, to assume makes an ass out of you and me.

[%sig%]

Hi Greg

Greg Ross wrote:
> Its time to stop! Now.

I suspect that may not happen until there is an apology to those whose names and reputations have been dragged through the mud. And by that I do mean the performers.

I'm yet to see any response from the producers beyond your second hand reports. In the meantime, I suspect you're not doing your own credibility much good by posting on behalf of nameless others and then later disowning your remarks and saying it was what you were implored to post.

> The amateur theatre community is doing
> itself possibly irreparable long term harm.

Really? If we were to close down discussion and forgoe voicing issues that concern us for the sake of sponsorship dollars, I think we really would be doing ourselves harm.

> I have been
> trying to secure sponsorship of the annual Finley Awards and
> have just taken a phone call from the people IÂ’ve been
> working with, to the effect of why would they want to get
> involved with that sort of back biting and viciousness, as
> who on earth would want to take the risk of being mixed up
> with that sort of publicity.

If you haven't got answers for those questions, is the answer to try and change the community?

Personally I'd have at least a couple of answers for your potential sponsors.

Through their support of the Finley Awards, the sponsors are supporting member companies of the Independent Theatre Association who make up less than three percent of the theatre companies making use of this site. Theatre Australia hasn't equated with the ITA nor vice versa for at least the past four years.

As Douglas has pointed out this debacle was not the fault of the people coming out in support of actors apparently mistreated.

The reaction in part evidenced on this website is actually an example of the strength and vitality of the community these sponsors maybe able to support.

Cheers
Grant

[%sig%]

Greg:

As much as I'm sure most would appreciate the commercial sponsorship of the Finley Awards you've been working on, I can only think your potential sponsors would want to back out over this MD debacle because you've either promised them 'naming rights' (which would have to ratified by the ITA) OR you've promised something else you couldn't *possibly* deliver without controversy... like 'creative control' or 'veto rights' on either nominated plays/musicals, or the performed selections?

At least it sounds a bit like this, reading between the lines. I could (and would happily) be wrong - but for potential 'sponsors' to (supposedly) be heading for the hills over what amounts to several bruised egos (no matter how righteous), and some messages on a bulletin board (which is NOT frequented by the majority of the population) is, frankly, absurd.

And if you think *THIS* current 'furore' is bad, you should see the unhappiness which would erupt should 'sponsors' elect to exercise any control over the presentation or awarding of prizes for the Finleys...

Regards,
Jason

Grant
Thankyou so much for your thoughtful and eloquent response. I was apalled at Greg's 'Consequences' posting and the idea that the heartfelt support of many on this site would be construed by any sensible person as "doing possibly irreparable long term harm". Or for that matter that anyone reading these posts would see the discussion as "back biting and viciousness".

I applaud all those who have come out in support of what has happened. As you have all probably gathered, I was not in the cast of the K & I but am a friend of one of the 'sacked' understudies and have been a part of the community theatre community on and off for 10 years.

When I heard what happened, I felt sick. I think anyone who has been in the Perth scene (or no doubt any community like this) would have instantly empathised with the actors involved. This could have been any one of us.

It is extremely disappointing to me that not only has the production company had no official response (despite the West's erroneous report that Mr Bugden's post that was made quite some time before the sacking incident was a 'response'), but that Greg Ross (who like or not, has appointed himself the unofficial spokesperson of the MS Society) would resort to comments to the effect that we're all just drama queens and when that didn't shut us up accused us of being responsible for potential sponsors of the arts pulling out. Really, how ridiculous and shameful! If the MS Society hasn't figured out by now that name calling and threats aren't going to cut it, then hopefully the West article (albeit a fairly disappointing and factually inaccurate account in my view), and Charles' recent post will. Here's to you Charles for such a gracious and humble response to the way you have been treated.

http://www.theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=19&i=7200&t=7160

Wow! This was going to be a short thank you. Sorry folks!

Greg Ross wrote:
>
> Its time to stop! Now. The amateur theatre community is doing
> itself possibly irreparable long term harm. I have been
> trying to secure sponsorship of the annual Finley Awards and
> have just taken a phone call from the people IÂ’ve been
> working with, to the effect of why would they want to get
> involved with that sort of back biting and viciousness, as
> who on earth would want to take the risk of being mixed up
> with that sort of publicity.



Greg. The harm was not caused by the amateur theatre community, and in any event, the said theatre community cops enough punishment as a matter of day-to-day survival that I reckon it's resilient enough to ride this tiny wave out.

If you are talking about the wave of support and solidarity the community of performers has been expressing against a production house which has seemed to prove incompetent and exploitative, then I personally pray it does NOT stop, but is remembered and continues.

Ask yourself where the viciousness and backstabbing really started; and then ask your potential sponsors if they only realize just how much GOOD word of mouth would be generated by this amateur community toward a company that treated them WELL.


Cheers
Craig

[%sig%]

Luke Heath wrote:
>
> Doug???
>
> I have personally worked with Dr Sutherland-Bruce, and he
> doesnt seem to me to fit with Doug. To me he will always be
> Douglas. I find it always better to err on the side of
> caution with a name that can be shortened. If he wanted to be
> called Doug he would have Dr Doug Sutherland-Bruce as his
> sign-in name.
>
> Always remember, to assume makes an ass out of you and me.
>
> A play should give you something to think about. When I see a play and > understand it for the first time, then i know it can't be much good. T.S.
> ELIOT





TS ???

Luke, I assume you haven't personally worked with TS Eliot, so wouldn't it be more respectfully cautious to refer to him as Thomas Stearns Eliot in future...?


And don't forget, to be a smart ass requires being smart.


Cheers,
Craig

I agree with Greg Ross - that the news has been played out....and Joe is a good mate of mine and I was extremely disappointed to hear what happened, but, if the debate had been kept at a level above emotional threats of murder, or at least threat of bodily injury, and the like, then the interests of our industry would have been maintained. Everything said after the murder threat is now being tainted with the same level of credibilty. Unfortunate , but the truth. So despite the disparity of sentiment and the obvious readibility for the web junkies, I must say that sometimes it is better to take a breath and look for something new to chew on.

For those who believe we can ignore the commercial reality of sponsors supporting our industry for the benefit of the actors the struggle will prevail. For those who are prepared to work in a balanced forum ..the force be with you. The solution is balance and it seems that everything has been said that can be said.

Oh and ...is Luke short for anything.

[%sig%]

Hi Garry

Garry Lawrence wrote:
> I agree with Greg Ross - that the news has been played
> out....and Joe is a good mate of mine and I was extremely
> disappointed to hear what happened, but, if the debate had
> been kept at a level above emotional threats of murder, or at
> least threat of bodily injury, and the like, then the
> interests of our industry would have been maintained.
> Everything said after the murder threat is now being tainted
> with the same level of credibilty. Unfortunate , but the
> truth.

You'll have to let me know where you and Craig bought your copies of that, Garry. I've always wanted my own version of absolute, irrefutable truth.

:-)

In spite of your remarks, and those of the poor sap whose friend was upset, I don't think the matter is over. I'm not aware that anything has been heard from the producers by way of explanation, let alone an apology. Maybe we're not going to. The last word may be played out in the boardroom of the MS Society when the option to stage another show next year is raised.

Personally, I hope the MS Society does give it another go. But there's some bridge building to be done if they're to avoid a repetition of the King & I fiasco.

> So despite the disparity of sentiment and the obvious
> readibility for the web junkies, I must say that sometimes it
> is better to take a breath and look for something new to chew
> on.

I've been looking hard for disparity in the sentiment expressed over the last few days and can only come up with Greg's second hand contributions vs everyone else, until your post today.

Personally, I'm suspicious of attempts to mischaracterise and stifle debate. If we're going to move forward and learn from these problems rather than repeat them, there's going to have to be an awful lot more discussion.

> For those who believe we can ignore the commercial reality of
> sponsors supporting our industry for the benefit of the
> actors the struggle will prevail. For those who are prepared
> to work in a balanced forum ..the force be with you. The
> solution is balance and it seems that everything has been
> said that can be said.

And that balance is not achieved by toadying to the dubious needs of sponsors at the expense of the things that our industry stands for.

There are reputable sponsors out there that have a much broader view of what supporting the theatre industry and community in this state is about than has been suggested by either you or Greg. Thank goodness, these people won't and haven't given up at the first sign of someone getting a emotional or using inflammatory language. They look beyond that and see the apology posted minutes later, the way this community has rallied to support their own, the passionate but considered arguments being put. They see growth, committment, and enthusiasm. The west was right, this about theatre, it is about drama; and we need sponsors that recognise and accept the industry, the community and it's very diverse membership for what it is - not for what they want to make it.

Cheers
Grant

[%sig%]

Garry Lawrence wrote:
>
> I agree with Greg Ross - that the news has been played
> out....and Joe is a good mate of mine and I was extremely
> disappointed to hear what happened, but, if the debate had
> been kept at a level above emotional threats of murder, or at
> least threat of bodily injury, and the like, then the
> interests of our industry would have been maintained.
> Everything said after the murder threat is now being tainted
> with the same level of credibilty. Unfortunate , but the
> truth. So despite the disparity of sentiment and the obvious
> readibility for the web junkies, I must say that sometimes it
> is better to take a breath and look for something new to chew
> on.
> For those who believe we can ignore the commercial reality of
> sponsors supporting our industry for the benefit of the
> actors the struggle will prevail. For those who are prepared
> to work in a balanced forum ..the force be with you. The
> solution is balance and it seems that everything has been
> said that can be said.
>
> Oh and ...is Luke short for anything.



Hi Garry

Everything has been said that can be said? Yes, I believe I've heard that said before...!
But some things bear repeating. After all, as Grant recently pointed out, a similar situation has happened each year for the past several years...and is likely to again. Only with information and awareness will anything change.

A forum like this gives the impression of documentation, because the words are recorded and archived...but really it mainly operates as a conversation. Issues remain relevant for as long as someone wishes to talk about them, and only come to the fore when there is continuing, in-the-moment, discussion.
Even as we speak, others are joining the conversation for the first time, will ask many of the same old questions for the first time, will supply many of the same old answers for the first time. That's just how it works.


I haven't personally threatened anyone with murder (yet!), but there have been heaps of threats, torrents of abuse, and plenty of morons being offensive. In the wider context of how often this happens over the history of this website, a) it's actually insignificant, and b) it does not taint subsequent posts to anywhere near the extent you claim. (If it did, your own logic would preclude me from considering your post so credible..!)
Every post ought to be judged on its own merit.


And balance? In the sense of 'equal time allocated to all aspects of an issue'? It's an honourable concept, but in practice it doesn't exist! There are more than two sides to every story, and there's no rule that the sides must be equal, or all represented. Equality is a value judgement anyway, and totally subjective. So there are always going to be aspects of an issue that demand more discussion. Whether this is fair or right or good or desirable is not for us to control...the simple fact is, that issues remain important enough to discuss so long as there is still someone willing to discuss them.



Cheers,
Craig


PS perhaps not short FOR something but short OF something..?

All I have ever asked of the MS. society, from either David Bugden or Marcus Stafford(C.E.O) is an explanation for not allowing me to take the stage for the agreed number of shows. Their respective silence has been deafening. Mr Bugden whilst discharging me from the production did, with a heavy heart explain to me that he was loathe to do so over the phone, He had an opportunity to remedy this and make good on his claim at the Final night cast party, He chose not to. Having avoided me all night it was left to me to approach him as he bid his farewell. Dave's excuse for not speaking to me was he felt it was not the right forum. It does not require a forum to explain ones mistake or to provide a simple apology. What it takes is dignity, a sense of fair play and the courage of one's convictions.
So with respect to both Greg Ross and Garry Lawrence, I do not believe this has played out. Until such time as either an explanation for the extreme action taken by the Producers or an apology for the manner in which they took it has been forthcoming I will not consider looking for something "new to chew on".
Cheers Joe!

Only short for some of the characters I audition for (sometimes maybe a bit young)!!

I would like to get the director's perspective on what happened, because no one, even if they were in the show. I doubt that we would be able to get it from the MS Society.

[%sig%]

I have read with interest this continuing saga, and I still don't know why the Understudies were sacked.

Was their performance so bad ?

If so who determined that ? .... the Director .... the Producer ... the Principal actors that Understudies were performing for ..... the Public .... who ?

I am right in assuming that the Understudies did rehearse their respective roles, and were given direction, and that the Director was happy with their performances.

I am sure we all have attended plays (both professional, and Amateur) where lines get dropped, props don't work as they should, lighting mishaps. These are things that do happen, and will always happen.

One thing I have learnt from this is to steer well clear of any so called Pro-Am productions .... I am firmly of the belief that if anyone is paid to perform either off-stage, or on-stage in a production then all get paid.

I still remember Joe the Marloo's Theatre cat taking up residence on-stage during the King's death scene.

Regards
David

I went to the Wedenesday night performance of the show and could not find fault with the understudies performance.

There was no announcement before the show that the understudies were performing and this is probably a good thing as you will not prejudge them. I know we have attended shows at the Burswood, The Boy From Oz comes to mind where the lead pulled out weeks before the end due to an upcoming operation and we were not impressed when we heard the announcement as we paid top dollars to see the leads.

The regal show was ok but lacked the professional touch which includes a smooth flow of all characters. Some cast members walked on stage and stayed there, which is a direction flaw, and some lighting cues came in too early which cut off ends of dramatic moments, which is usually a SM bad call as the LX op hits the GO button when called. The DSC positions of the King and Prince when they held their hand up high and blocked the perch lights could easilly have been overcome and should have been spotted during the tech.

But I knew it was an amateur production by reading the posts on this web site and luckilly used my West card discount of 25%.

So the show was ok but the understudies were good, I thought they were the leads.

Don

Why does it have to STOP, ya moron?

Has the scandal been resolved yet?

Big Ramifications wrote:
>
>
> Why does it have to STOP, ya moron?
>
> Has the scandal been resolved yet?

In my experience, scandals are rarely resolved. If there was a good explaination for all of this, one that "cleared things up", someone would have provided it by now.

As long as actors allow themselves to work for free, don't join Equity, and don't protect their rights, they will be exploited. It's very wrong, but it's a fact.

Outrage is entirely justified, but impotent until the actors themselves refuse to allow it to happen. And when the outrage starts damaging our community, doing more harm than good, it's time for it to stop.

The only thing we can do is vote with our wallets. If you knew your shoes had been made by eight year olds working fourteen hour days in dangerous conditions, would you buy them? If you are opposed to actors working for free and being turfed out of shows with no explanation or justification, in situations where producers will make a lot of money, don't go to the shows. I don't.

Leah M

Big Ramifications wrote:
>
>
> Why does it have to STOP, ya moron?
>
> Has the scandal been resolved yet?

In my experience, scandals are rarely resolved. If there was a good explaination for all of this, one that "cleared things up", someone would have provided it by now.

As long as actors allow themselves to work for free, don't join Equity, and don't protect their rights, they will be exploited. It's very wrong, but it's a fact.

Outrage is entirely justified, but impotent until the actors themselves refuse to allow it to happen. And when the outrage starts damaging our community, doing more harm than good, it's time for it to stop.

The only thing we can do is vote with our wallets. If you knew your shoes had been made by eight year olds working fourteen hour days in dangerous conditions, would you buy them? If you are opposed to actors working for free and being turfed out of shows with no explanation or justification, in situations where producers will make a lot of money, don't go to the shows. I don't.

Leah M

Yeah, those actors should've signed something. They were asking for it. That'll teach them to lend their talent and time to a charity and to believe an agreement should be honoured. Those fools. It's a tough industry out there and if you can't handle the vicious cut'n'thrust of fundraising musical theatre, get out of the freakin' kitchen.
Now then, you wretched rabble that were justifiably upset at being shafted and all you other naive people who were supporting them (next you'll be saying that unfair dismissal laws should be abolished...oh, wait a minute...), just shut the f*ck up about how crappily treated those actors were, otherwise all those BIG CORPORATE SPONSORS with BUCKETS OF MONEY who were going to bankroll ALL of Perth's community theatre will change their minds! That's right. They'll think when they offer a discount on poster printing or perhaps donate some paint for the set, that it won't give them a right to sack the cast if the recipient theatres' production of Lipstick Dreams isn't up to their exacting and informed standards...

When will you people listen to reason? must all of community theatre suffer for the sake of a whingeing majority who don't like seeing their friends and fellow theatre-types being treated shabbily?