'K & I' sackings

Hi,

I've been reading some of the posts made by Joe and several other people regarding the 'K & I' understudy sackings. I'm not sure if you're aware but Justin Freind hasn't been the lead role for Luntha for very long. I was sacked about a month ago from lead role as Luntha and found out then that Justin had been replaced as lead role.

I'm 17 years old finishing year 12 TEE in Kelmscott. I spent 72 hours and a lot of money driving to bloody carlisle for rehearsals and having said that my TEE will suffer because of this experience.

I've discovered recently that the understudies were sacked over the phone. I'm not sure how you all took it at the time but when i was told in person i was shocked for 3 days. I too don't understand why proffessional performers are in a voluntary production and fortunately have had the support of my family to pry information from Marcus Stafford (He proudly calls himself the "CEO of the MS Society!") and came to our own conclusion quite some time ago that the goings on of this production have been far from a coincidence.

Interestingly enough I was one of the first, if not THE FIRST lead role to be cast in this production, that is, everyone else from my knowledge was still attending call-backs.

Odd how 4 or 5 weeks before opening night they suddenly changed their view on my acting ability in a 85% singing role.

Kind Regards,
Trent Laurenson

I am disgusted at the way actors are currently being treated in this town. I have never "sacked" an actor from a production - and we pay them! That is why we have auditions, isn't it? To determine who is right for a role and whether they are actually able to do it or not? It would be a different matter if an actor was unreliable, not turning up to rehearsals or late for performances, etc. - but it certainly doesn't sound like the case here. It seems to me that actors are increasingly seen as dispensible "fodder" who can be easily replaced so therefore are not treated with even basic common respect.
Believe me, this isn't only happening in the "pro-am" scene. I have recently had an humiliating incident in the "professional"world that would never have been allowed to happen 10 years ago!
What is the solution? Boycotting certain companies? I think the trouble is, most of us are so "desperate" to perform we will consider anything...but where do we draw the line?

Angelique Malcolm
Class Act Theatre Inc.

It's tough being an inexperienced performer in a full size production like the K & I.

My drama studies teacher doesn't understand how a lead role could be sacked, especially after i showed her what proportion of my role was dialogue.

I've been told this doesn't happen and from the comments made by others i whole heartedly believe that.

Agreed Angelique - never happened to me but I've seen it happen in both pro-am and professional. My observation (which is admittedly from position of lesser experience to your own) has been that producers who engage in that kind of behaviour are often as naive/inexperienced as the young actors they tend to exploit - ie it seems to happen when through either grants, a good idea (or admittedly through the producer's hard work) they are producing a show that is 'ahead' of their experience level. Whenever I've seen actors unfairly sacked, it has been by a producer that has leaped straight into co-op after 1 or 2 amateur shows, or a relatively new film-maker that is undertaking their first professional project - who haven't quite got their head around the idea of 'Perth-having-professional-actors' and consequently they overrate the value of their production, they see casting an actor almost like doing him/her a favour (by virtue of giving the actor the opportunity to act) rather than being an agreement under which they have obligations, and tend to underestimate the experience, expertise and effort applied by their cast, all contributing to a management-style that would be completely discredited in any other 'commercial' setting.

By comparison, it has always seemed to me that the more experienced a producer is the better they treat their cast - maybe its because they are more likely to see good relations with the acting community as linked to their long-term viability, maybe its just because they have a better understanding of the effort (and in some cases financial reliance) associated with acting.

With that in mind, I'd suggest taking the same approach to producers that most people use with actors - forgive them a couple of episodes of bad/irresponsible behaviour when they're new and inexperienced, and if they do the same thing again then boycott them.

Craig K Edwards wrote:
>
> I'd suggest taking the same approach to
> producers that most people use with actors - forgive them a
> couple of episodes of bad/irresponsible behaviour when
> they're new and inexperienced, and if they do the same thing
> again then boycott them.

Lisle Jones, former Head of Acting at WAAPA (and my all-time favourite acting teacher), used to say (and no doubt still does), "Make mistakes by all means... just don't make them twice."



dm.

the meddoes wrote:
>
> Lisle Jones, former Head of Acting at WAAPA (and my all-time
> favourite acting teacher), used to say (and no doubt still
> does), "Make mistakes by all means... just don't make them
> twice."


And for crying out loud, LEARN from them.

the meddoes wrote:

> Lisle Jones, former Head of Acting at WAAPA (and my all-time
> favourite acting teacher), used to say (and no doubt still
> does), "Make mistakes by all means... just don't make them
> twice."



Mistakes are good, we can learn from them and make progress - so long as steps are immediately taken to correct them, as soon as they're recognised.

No point encouraging someone to make a mistake (even only once) if they quit where they are having still made the mistake.


We can forgive any new producer for not getting things perfect. I think most of the upset here lately has been because there seemed to be no attempt to make amends.


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

The sacking of any actor who is doing a good job in the role and is commited is dispicable. I too would like to think that some sought of mistake or error in judgement was made by the management, being the optimist that i am. However this seems to me to be a very good example of a business decision being made for the sacrifice of one's morals, ethics and common human decency.

With all due respect to Trent, who would get more bums on seats ? himself or Justin Friend?

How can anyone claim it was a mistake? it seems to me to be a very well thought out decision. I would expect this kind of ruthlessness from an American film studio, but in Perth? from a charity? how sad!