A Reluctant Devil's Advocate

I had no intention of commenting on what has occurred in relation to the understudies in the MS Society production of “The King and I,” as I haven’t been involved with the show. Nor do I have any experience in casting, producing and directing shows – apart from several years of creating and overseeing events, such as motor vehicle launches etc, which admittedly often involve aspects of theatre.

However, I have received emails from people involved with the show, requesting that I should comment, in light of my previous defence of Dave Bugden and the MS Society, as having found him and the organisation, to be good and honourable. Therefore somewhat reluctantly, under the afore mentioned pressure, I offer the following, having made some phone calls this morning in search of background information.

Neither the MS Society here in WA, nor Dave Bugden had any previous experience in musical theatre, however the MS Society in South Australia has a successful record of presenting musical theatre as a tried and true method of fund-raising and it was felt the formula could just as successfully be applied over here.

The production was welcomed as a great opportunity by many people and consequently, the relevant staff were appointed to bring the show to life as a pro-am production and here, itÂ’s important to point out that in spite of other postings to the contrary, I am assured none of the cast were paid.

As someone else has rightly said, the theatre community in Perth is very close and there is a possibility that good intentions and long term friendships may have led to some unusual promises and non-standard practises being introduced. Which is not to infer anything nefarious, quite the opposite – a wish to make sure much loved friends etc, had as much opportunity as possible to appear on stage. As an example, some would find the circumstance where only the understudies appeared in the major roles in some shows, as not best-practice, for a pro-am show. I don’t think 30 pieces if silver were involved, rather the heartfelt desire to look after a treasured friend.

We all know that no matter how many rehearsals we diligently attend, nothing replaces the acute learning curve of an actual performance and the consequent ability to hone and fine tune. An understudy is automatically placed in an invidious position, not having that same benefit, no matter how talented.

In that knowledge, one must question the decision to use only understudies in the Wednesday performance. Dave Bugden found himself in a dreadful position, the overall performance was well below the standard set by the normal cast and he was on the receiving end of complaints (more than a couple unfortunately).

And here, letÂ’s be honest, the friends and family of cast members are not going to complain. In my last show, on opening night, in a lead role, I missed several lines and was thankfully rescued by the good grace and experience of my fellow cast members. My friends and family were effusive in their praise afterwards, but I knew better, as did everyone else in the production and more than a few old hands in the audience I have no doubt! Indeed my partner came back for the final night and said she was very happy to find another twenty minutes had been added to the show Â… courtesy of yours truly finally nailing the damn thing!
Now while there’s no excuse for not giving your very best performance possible, which, although I did so on the first night, it was sub-standard, it was still an amateur theatre night, with a forgiving, savvy amateur theatre audience. Dave Bugden’s position with “The King and I” was a vastly different scenario. He was confronted with a substantial difference in performance quality and complaints from an unforgiving public, paying good money for tickets.

The main cast had been receiving superb reviews, with no complaints, the following Saturday matinee was virtually a sell-out and he had a duty-of-care to the paying public to provide the best possible show, hence the decision to not use the understudies for the matinee.

He loathed doing it and never imagined he would find himself in that position. The understudies hadnÂ’t, (through no fault of their own), had the chance to develop their roles to the level the main actors had, although their talents are felt to be just as good. Of course, debate will rage over his decision, the merits or otherwise of pro-am theatre and the unusual practise of putting on a show with only understudies, however, with no malice whatsoever and a heavy heart, he took the only sane commercial decision possible.

Kind regards
Greg Ross