Consequences

Its time to stop! Now. The amateur theatre community is doing itself possibly irreparable 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

For once I agree with you - it is time to stop!!

My only comment is that I do not believe the people involved (except for the poor bloody actors) are anything to do with the Perth Amateur Theatre Community. Please try and get that across to your possible sponsors.

rgds

Stuart

Greg Ross wrote:
>
> Its time to stop! Now. The amateur theatre community is doing
> itself possibly irreparable long term harm.



Gee Greg, by posting this same message in two different forums, you obviously felt the need for me to refute you twice! I hope I don't make you feel twice as misguided?

http://www.theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=18&i=4800&t=4793



Stuart wrote:
>
> My only comment is that I do not believe the people involved
> (except for the poor bloody actors) are anything to do with
> the Perth Amateur Theatre Community. Please try and get that
> across to your possible sponsors.


Not sure who you are referring to here, Stuart?
"The people involved"...is this a reference to the MS Society, who in your opinion are not to be considered part of the Perth amateur theatre community..?

Or are you continuing Greg's notion that the non-cast members making their opinions heard here are not welcome to..?

As far as my personal involvement, you are right. I am not technically a part of the Perth amateur theatre community, being a card-carrying professional of some 17 years.
But I have an opinion. I have made some observations. I have listened to others. And I think Greg's possible sponsors could do no worse than to observe the fierce passion and loyalty displayed by members of this forum, and to realize that any support and respect they found themselves able to offer the amateur theatre community through the Finley's would be reflected back toward them with that same passion and loyalty.

I don't see the harm.

Cheers,
Craig

Craig

I obviously didn't put it very clearly but I MEANT the production organisation behind K&I.

cheers

Stuart

publicity = inside cover The west australian 28/10/04

walter plinge wrote:
>
> publicity = inside cover The west australian 28/10/04

One word - ironic.



Crispy.

Crispian wrote:
> walter plinge wrote:
> > publicity = inside cover The west australian 28/10/04
> One word - ironic.

I rarely read the west. Was there another mention of this business in today's inside cover?

Maybe it's a very slow news week?

Cheers
Grant

[%sig%]

Crispian wrote:
>
> walter plinge wrote:
> >
> > publicity = inside cover The west australian 28/10/04
>
> One word - ironic.





Or another word - inaccurate.

Nice that the MD and choreographer stated their case (absolving themselves of blame, at least). I guess they don't know about this website, and were just replying to the paper..?

But the Inside Cover once again managed to contrive a conclusion by quoting from Greg Ross's controversial post but getting the context completely wrong, and not acknowledging that his does not seem to be a popularly supported view.

Still, it comes across as nicely sensational, and vaguely amusing...we all realise the real, accurate news happens a few pages in.
(...um, somewhere..?)


Cheers,
Craig

Craig,


My email to the paper was sent early Monday as a direct response to Inside Cover. That they have taken until now to publish is due to John Quigley!


I did not intend my email to be taken as "absolving me of blame", the point really being that I would have fought strongly to have kept the understudies had I been brought into the discussions. They had been promised the Saturday matinee, they were more than capable of giving a great performance. Many people had bought tickets to specifically see the understudies on the Saturday, and may I add that the audience's response to the show on the Wednesday night was one of the best responses we had during the run.

Chris Ryland wrote:
>
> Craig,
>
>
> My email to the paper was sent early Monday as a direct
> response to Inside Cover. That they have taken until now to
> publish is due to John Quigley!
>
>
> I did not intend my email to be taken as "absolving me of
> blame", the point really being that I would have fought
> strongly to have kept the understudies had I been brought
> into the discussions. They had been promised the Saturday
> matinee, they were more than capable of giving a great
> performance. Many people had bought tickets to specifically
> see the understudies on the Saturday, and may I add that the
> audience's response to the show on the Wednesday night was
> one of the best responses we had during the run.



Fair enough. Sorry to have insinuated otherwise. Thanks, Chris, for expressing your side of the story here.


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

crgwllms wrote:
> Or another word - inaccurate.

Yes, the write up really gave me the impression that a few people here were stirring up trouble against a poor defenceless charity and yet there was really nothing to complain about because lots of people were posting about what a good show K&I was. The blurb apparently entirely missed the point that the people complimenting the performance, were complimenting the work of the understudies and were speaking out against the sacking. But I suspect no-one is really surprised to find a newspaper has got this wrong.

> But the Inside Cover once again managed to contrive a
> conclusion by quoting from Greg Ross's controversial post but
> getting the context completely wrong, and not acknowledging
> that his does not seem to be a popularly supported view.

The west is has a monopoly it doesn't have to popular and you have to bear in mind the size of Greg's advertising account. My last few classifieds were hardly a blip on the radar at the west, and many theatre companies have all but given up on advertising in the west, why would our opinions matter?

> Still, it comes across as nicely sensational, and vaguely
> amusing...we all realise the real, accurate news happens a
> few pages in.
> (...um, somewhere..?)

That'll be the crossword trivia pages where I understand some real research takes place prior to publication.

;-)

Cheers
Grant

[%sig%]

Grant Malcolm wrote:
>
> Yes, the write up really gave me the impression that a few
> people here were stirring up trouble against a poor
> defenceless charity and yet there was really nothing to
> complain about because lots of people were posting about what
> a good show K&I was. The blurb apparently entirely missed the
> point that the people complimenting the performance, were
> complimenting the work of the understudies and were speaking
> out against the sacking. But I suspect no-one is really
> surprised to find a newspaper has got this wrong.

Mr Adshead, when I questioned him, had this to say:

>I think my stories accurately reflect the mess over the understudies being
>sacked and Greg Ross calling for the public vitriol to stop.
>Thanks for the feedback
>Gary

I'd agree with him about accurately giving the impression of a mess.


> The west is has a monopoly it doesn't have to popular and you
> have to bear in mind the size of Greg's advertising account.
> My last few classifieds were hardly a blip on the radar at
> the west, and many theatre companies have all but given up on
> advertising in the west, why would our opinions matter?


Actually, I was surprised the article was printed at all - not because it's so unusual to talk about arts issues (which it is), but because I'm not sure that anyone reading the articles out of context without being involved in the show or having read this website would understand what the hell was going on! It wasn't comprehensive enough to explain or justify its existence...but maybe the advertising account angle makes more sense.


> > Still, it comes across as nicely sensational, and vaguely
> > amusing...we all realise the real, accurate news happens a
> > few pages in.
> > (...um, somewhere..?)
>
> That'll be the crossword trivia pages where I understand some
> real research takes place prior to publication.
> > ;-)


True! But trivia and cryptics can be found elsewhere. It's not worth purchasing a whole paper just for that...and I don't. It just happens to be delivered to the place I'm staying in while my house is being built, hence my momentary interest.

Cheers
Craig

[%sig%]

Hi chaps - I've written a 2 page Word document in response to many of the topics raised in relation to the King & I debate, but have totally failed to get the reply + attachment accepted by the website. Anyone got any ideas?

Tim

OK - so I've given up trying to send an attachment - maybe there's a problem. Here is my lengthy comment. Have patience & enjoy - I welcome any responses:

The King & I debate 2/11/04 (Tim Markes)

IÂ’ve read ALL the correspondence surrounding the King and I on/off stage drama and have relevant experience plus a few comments, which might even kick it along a bit?

In the UK, I was for several years on the small board of a very successful Light Operatic/Musical group, which raised many thousands of pounds Sterling for charity from each musical it staged. We hired both Musical and Artistic Directors and also were faced with the unavoidable task of firing both (on different occasions). Directors and musicians were paid. Performers on stage were not paid – no matter what their pedigree, which was often impressive. We produced an excellent detailed programme packed with paid advertisements from many (mainly local – South London) businesses. Other money raising techniques were used, which there is no space to explore here. None of the many charities who benefited asked for any measure of artistic control and I feel sure that such a request would have been refused. The idea that an office holder of such a charity might try to influence who appeared on stage would have been unthinkable. And yes – I was also a very modest performer, always aiming for the chorus, but invariably asked to a little bit more.

I arrived in Perth with my partner Michele Galazowski, an experienced Lieder, Operatic singer and violinist in ’91. Our first ‘gig’ was on stage with the wonderful Alyson Fife (Lady Thiang in K&I) as “Patience” for the G&S Society. Immediately relevant to this debate, however, is that both of us have been directed by Neroli Burton and Musically Directed by Gloria Underwood in productions produced by Pat Barton – Gloria & Pat being clearly highlighted by David Bugden as persons ‘without the assistance (of whom), The King & I wouldn’t have evolved.’ Pat & Gloria were two (of the original four?) partners in Omnibus Productions. Thanks to Gloria, a spur of the moment audition also resulted (to my astonishment) in my being cast as understudy to the leading role of a musical directed by Neroli.

As an instrumentalist I have spent SEVERAL MONTHS in the pit (paid & unpaid) under various MDs - including Justin - and had a brief spell as MD with Playlovers with a VERY talented cast – including one of your correspondents. Naturally my performance in all these roles was replete with imperfection, but as a true ‘pro’ I endeavoured to spread the glitches as thinly as possible over the run! Michele joined the King and I orchestra at the Sitz Probe and played joint first violin. I knew a few orchestra members (but NOT the MD).

My final declaration of ‘interest’ is one which I would willingly do without. It is that I arrived at His Majesty’s Theatre for the 2nd week Friday night performance in a wheelchair. As some of you may know, I have Motor Neurone Disease, a considerably less well-funded related charity than MS [Here in WA, they have a State Director, receptionist and 2 part time carers – certainly no ‘Senior Manager, Marketing & Sales Development’].

I thoroughly enjoyed the show. Tears flowed freely (it doesnÂ’t take much these days); the principals, set, costumes, orchestra and chorus were more than OK. Sean Yeo as the King was so convincing and commanded the stage.

Prompted by some of your correspondents and backed by my personal experience, however, I do have some specific comments, as follows:

Pro-Am: I can’t see this anywhere on the programme. I can only assume this was part of the MS marketing ‘spin’ to the media and thus to the paying punters, who would surely expect Professionals on stage or in the orchestra (or both). I know it’s a tough definition, but a professional performing actor/musician, in my view, is someone who earns the majority of his total income from that occupation. So, for example, a full time professional music teacher is very unlikely to be up to the performance and sight-reading standard of a permanent WASO player (and there were none of these in the orchestra). Musicians were paid, but certainly not professional rates and some were paid more than others – just another example of poor judgement or inexperience by (presumably?) the MS management. One of the reasons a pit orchestra musician is ‘paid’, by the way, is not because he/she is necessarily ‘more professional’, or even makes fewer mistakes than those on stage; they just tend to have considerably more musical commitments throughout the year than a typical actor – some of them paid, some not. A payment goes some way to ensure that the person is secured for the run.

Just because a CAST member gets paid a certain sum (e.g. in lieu of lost Saturday arvo income) or gets a free Ad, surely doesn’t suddenly turn them into Professional performers or, for that matter, transform the ‘amateur’ production into a PRO-AM event! It’s one thing to expect a performer to sacrifice his social life for 3 months (& his HAIR in some cases), but if he is clearly losing substantial income, the producers have a dilemma. And - in the unlikely event of the ‘management’ deciding to sack the understudies and require the main cast to appear in their place, it seems quite clear that they are obligated to meet any additional expenses arising?!

Emphasising that this description says absolutely nothing about quality of performance, it seems to me that “The King and I” was clearly an AMATEUR production and if “Les Mis” has a similar profile, it would surely be wise to make the status of the production clear – whatever the professional status of back stage crew, lighting, sound, sets etc. or direction. The very best productions you will ever see in this state bar NONE, by the way, are totally amateur – at WAAPA/ECU, Bradford St., with a 20 plus piece orchestra and incredible performances – do yourself a favour?!

Understudies/Alternate Cast: My strong impression of Underwood/Barton productions is that Understudy roles are really an Alternate Cast. Hence the policy, which I think they have used many times in the past, of reserving, for the complete Understudy/Alternate cast, certain performances, which tend to be perhaps less well attended and less critical. Personally, IÂ’m sure it is motivated by the utmost goodwill and desire to give those, who may have only missed the top spots by a whisker, the chance to prove how fantastic they really are?! Just imagine, by the way, how many additional rehearsals you would require to ensure that no principal cast member met an understudy for the first time on stage - if understudy performances were spread throughout the (short) run?

My brief understudy experience (of a leading role) for Neroli required me to walk/talk through the role in parallel to rehearsals of the main cast (I also had a very minor role in the main cast). I recall having to push quite strongly for a separate rehearsal; it was not in the original rehearsal plan. I wonder if this Understudy cast had similar problems? Perhaps wisely, I was never promised a ‘performance’, so it would have required Alf Hurley to literally break a leg, before I had to face the music!

Main vs Alternate (that’s what I’ll call it) cast: I’ve seen Joe Isaia on stage in other productions, so it doesn’t surprise me in the least that there is absolutely universal approval in these columns for the Alternate cast performances on BOTH the first Saturday matinee AND the Wednesday evening; one or two clearly expressing a preference for this cast over the Main cast, many judgements being made BEFORE the Alternate cast were told that their services were not required for the final Sat matinee. Indeed, the only truly damning criticism has been for the Saturday matinee AUDIENCE!. Ironically, I’ll bet that the producers & ‘marketing’ have to take some responsibility for the audience content of these dates (coach parties etc.).

Both CAST and ORCHESTRA are supposed to be following the MD, by the way - not each other!. Slipups can be triggered by any combination of actions by many members of the company, including sound balance, foldback, mikes, props, lighting, crew, (MD?) etc. It is very short sighted to pin the fault on just the cast.or orchestra and really shows what a devastating effect a person with limited experience in authority can have.

Dave Bugden/Neroli Burton/Pat Barton/Producer?/Profits! It seems clear from the programme “our inaugural theatre production” “The MS Society’s production” and David Bugden’s title of “Executive Producer” that MS takes responsibility for the production. It is equally clear, from other comments in the programme, that they relied heavily upon advice & guidance and ‘work’ from Pat Barton & Gloria Underwood, hardly surprising in view of the fact that David Bugden apparently has no significant experience of theatre performance whatever. Neroli has been criticised for not ‘standing up to’ the undoubted pressure from Bugden to ‘sack’ the Alternate cast for the final Sat matinee. What, I wonder, was the precise contractual arrangement (if there was a written contract). Did MS actually have artistic control over the production? [God forbid!] Or was the decision influenced by nothing more than ‘force of personality’. So far, we have nothing but silence from the key players?!

Whether he had the legal authority or not, it does seem as though the Bugden decision was a really major mistake from every point of view. In these columns, there have been many plaudits & not a single significant criticism of the Alternate cast. Several pertinent questions arise which do not seem to have been resolved. What performances did Bugden actually see? Did he watch the first Alternate cast performance on the first Saturday matinee? Did he actually see the Wednesday pm performance at all? Did he personally know any of the so-called complainants following the Wednesday pm show? How many ‘important people/friends’ did he have attending the final Sat Matinee?? Finally, he apparently took the decision to axe the ‘alternate/understudy cast’ without consulting (see Rylands email) the Musical Director of the show??!! I wonder if he got the agreement of the (Artistic) Director, Neroli Burton or if (like Joe), she was informed that she had ‘no choice’?

$20 ‘Administration’ fee: So – MS is doing you a favour by allowing you to take part in the production? Just another tactless example of poor judgement, particularly when some of the cast perform professionally many times during the year (e.g. Justin). Little wonder that Joe could not stomach this item, when he had paid for 32 Gold Reserve tickets?!

Profits to MS: I am somewhat loath to disclose this last piece of inside information and I would welcome any MS authority, who could categorically correct me? IÂ’m afraid that I do have it on very good authority that all profits from K&I will go towards financing the next production (Les Mis) with no proceeds from this production going to the benefit of people with MS, which is very sad.

David Bugden: I do not know this gentleman; I expect he is a wonderful family man, likes animals, kisses babies etc. All of us who perform are familiar with major BOOBOOs, but Dave’s BOOBOO is, frankly, up there with the greatest – it will be talked about for years. But, to be charitable, there is no reason why Marketing Directors are somehow immune from the mistakes that afflict us as performers - but I do think we usually apologise??!. Apparently this MS marketing director, with or without authority, but clearly without any consultation with the Musical Director, managed to effectively sack a cast, which had been clearly acclaimed for their two public performances and were no doubt responsible to a degree for filling the seats at the promised third (and final) performance.

“Les Mis” is a hugely popular show. I heard that some 500 people applied to be in the cast of an earlier production. So it may be that Bugden might survive – even if not a single member of the King and I cast wished to continue the relationship with MS. If the “Les Mis’ production actually goes ahead, it would seem highly desirable that artistic control responsibility should be clearly defined and if any element of this remains with MS, they should appoint someone who has relevant experience. Based on what we have read in these columns and seen on stage, it seems extremely unlikely that Bugden would fit the bill. My own view, for what it’s worth, is that MS would be well advised to arrange an exchange with SA so that Bugden can gain some valuable work experience. In fact, to quote his own words (as reported by Greg Ross 23-10-04) this seems – ‘with no malice whatsoever and a heavy heart, ….the only sane commercial decision possible’?!

In spite of what has happened, I naturally hope that MS benefits substantially from its foray into fundraising from live theatre. One day, perhaps, we can do the same for MND. Unfortunately my days on stage or in the pit are over.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Tim.

I wasn't aware of Pat Barton's involvement...I don't know the man but I remember a huge amount of similar debate caused by previous productions of his. History seems to repeat itself.


Cheers,
Craig


PS I believe attachments can only be made here with small-sized photos, but not with any documents.

[%sig%]