A Reluctant Devil's Advocate
Sat, 23 Oct 2004, 12:16 pmGreg Ross40 posts in thread
A Reluctant Devil's Advocate
Sat, 23 Oct 2004, 12:16 pmI 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
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
Re: A Final Comment
Sun, 24 Oct 2004, 02:25 amWalter Plinge
Greg the problem here is not that people are bitching because they are highly strung self centered music theatre extroverts (although that may have something to do with it on other occasions ;-). Of course you have a right to say what you feel. It's just that the facts contradict your sentiments. Its about the exploitation of actors that spreads to all fields. At some point you have to say no, that's enough.
Your point would be valid if the people that were sacked were the ones that were the problem. That wasn't the case.
Surely professionals should be held to a higher standard than amateurs. So lets get the facts straight. The band, MD, director, and main crew were paid as professionals. The complaints were about:
1) The band - all professional and conducted by a professional. Yet anyone who heard them would have to acknowledge that if you were expecting to see an actual professioanl show and the band sounded like that you'd leave.
2a) The choir's diction - all young volunteers doing a great job, who are supposed to be taught and led by who? The MD, a professional. If their diction is unclear or they aren't together it the MD's fault. I've been involved in plenty of school productions and believe me it can be done.
2b) The choir's level - surely either the job of the MD or the sound operators - again, professionals.
3) One of the understudies being miscast - surely the director's responsibility - another 'professional'. And what does this 'professional' do when confronted by this problem? Sit there and allow Dave to lay the blame on the young actor, just doing his/her best and trying to get a great experience without having their confidence destroyed.
I ask you, is this professional behaviour? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But in the world according to Dave, this is all the fault of the understudies! This smacks of something that a political party would do, not a charity.
And if I may list some of the other faults:
- lighting cues incorrect (pro's)
- props in the wrong positions (pro's)
- some lines forgotten (actors - they aren't perfect!) But I've been in plenty of shows with paid actors where a few lines have gone astray. Unlike the MD, stage manager, lighting and sound people IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN FRONT OF THEM DURING THE SHOW!!!
Everyone makes mistakes. But apparently unpaid amateur volunteers are the only ones that suffer for them. Please let me know if any of this doesn't make sense Greg.
Ash
Your point would be valid if the people that were sacked were the ones that were the problem. That wasn't the case.
Surely professionals should be held to a higher standard than amateurs. So lets get the facts straight. The band, MD, director, and main crew were paid as professionals. The complaints were about:
1) The band - all professional and conducted by a professional. Yet anyone who heard them would have to acknowledge that if you were expecting to see an actual professioanl show and the band sounded like that you'd leave.
2a) The choir's diction - all young volunteers doing a great job, who are supposed to be taught and led by who? The MD, a professional. If their diction is unclear or they aren't together it the MD's fault. I've been involved in plenty of school productions and believe me it can be done.
2b) The choir's level - surely either the job of the MD or the sound operators - again, professionals.
3) One of the understudies being miscast - surely the director's responsibility - another 'professional'. And what does this 'professional' do when confronted by this problem? Sit there and allow Dave to lay the blame on the young actor, just doing his/her best and trying to get a great experience without having their confidence destroyed.
I ask you, is this professional behaviour? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But in the world according to Dave, this is all the fault of the understudies! This smacks of something that a political party would do, not a charity.
And if I may list some of the other faults:
- lighting cues incorrect (pro's)
- props in the wrong positions (pro's)
- some lines forgotten (actors - they aren't perfect!) But I've been in plenty of shows with paid actors where a few lines have gone astray. Unlike the MD, stage manager, lighting and sound people IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN FRONT OF THEM DURING THE SHOW!!!
Everyone makes mistakes. But apparently unpaid amateur volunteers are the only ones that suffer for them. Please let me know if any of this doesn't make sense Greg.
Ash
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···