understudies
Wed, 3 Nov 2004, 09:33 amWalter Plinge6 posts in thread
understudies
Wed, 3 Nov 2004, 09:33 amHaving read the latest discussion on the King and I understudies, I am wondering whether some people read Inside Cover's first piece on this.
My point is, you people started this by making it a public discussion and there's nothing wrong with that or the column picking it up and running with it.
Thanks for the feedback on the matter and break a leg (if that's appropriate)
Gary
A drama of Shakespearean proportions is unfolding in WA's theatre circles over
the sacking of understudies from a production of The King and I.
The nasty behind-the-scenes squabble is being acted out daily and publicly
on Theatre Australia's website discussion board.
It was a decision to order three understudies to exit, stage left from the
Regal Theatre and not come back that kicked off the feud last week.
"Anyone involved with the show or any shows knows the rampant favouritism
and politics that goes on, but this is too much,‘ was how the first salvo
began.
"Sacking talented volunteers, who in all honesty, carried a show where
there were a lot of sub-par elements from paid professionals.‘
The understudies had volunteered their services for the experience, but
also because the show was being produced and marketed by the Multiple
Sclerosis Society to raise money for the charity.
"I am disgusted by the way all understudies have been treated in this
production. However, I will speak only of my own experience as understudy to
the king,‘ wrote actor, student and father Joe Isaia.
"I attended every rehearsal, shaved my head, attended 21 sessions at a
solarium and kept my end of the bargain completely.
"I also booked and paid for 32 gold reserve tickets.‘
For agreeing to the understudy role Joe was guaranteed three performances,
two Saturday matinees and one last Wednesday night.
But after the Wednesday show, Joe was contacted by the MS Society's
marketing and sales manager David Bugden and told he'd been dumped and was no
longer needed for Saturday.
"He informed me that there had been some missed cues, dropped lines,
non-appearance of important props and two phone calls from disgruntled
patrons.‘
On the same day, two other understudies were given the same message and
according to Joe's blast none of them was offered any support by the King and
I's director.
"The net result is a woman I have known for over 15 years, who attended my
engagement, wedding, 40th birthday and who I originally played this role
opposite, did not use her considerable clout to right what I believe has been
a reprehensible wrong.‘
He finished with a note to the director asking her if she knew the exchange
rate for 30 pieces of silver.
On the back of Joe's stinging attack, the website chatter among theatre
goers and those in the business has been deafening.
"Personally, if I were a fellow cast member and this was the only reason
given for the sacking, I'd be walking or at least refusing to perform the
Saturday matinee without the understudies,‘ Grant wrote.
"Every person I heard talking about the show I went to loved the
understudies,‘ Ashimo said.
Worried about the damage the issue might do, the MS Society posted a
response which pointed out the dreadful nature of the chronic neurological
disease.
"In WA alone, we are now averaging 16 newly diagnosed people with MS each
month,‘ Mr Bugden wrote. "There is no cause, there is no cure.‘
But Mr Bugden did not go into the reasons the understudies were given the
boot.
"The MS Society will always ensure compliance with all contractual and
legal requirements relating not only to this musical theatre production, but
all and any other undertakings,‘ he said.
Understanding the valuable role of the society, Inside Cover decided to
wait until the King and I performances concluded yesterday and leave until
last the website posting which wins the over-acting and reacting award.
The winning website posting is addressed to Mr Bugden and is obviously from
one of the understudies' friends.
"I don't know who you are, but I hate you,‘ the anonymous person wrote.
"You made my friend cry and for that you will pay. Watch your back.‘
IC would advise that person to watch theirs because the police
might be coming up behind them soon.
SZ: MEDIUM
My point is, you people started this by making it a public discussion and there's nothing wrong with that or the column picking it up and running with it.
Thanks for the feedback on the matter and break a leg (if that's appropriate)
Gary
A drama of Shakespearean proportions is unfolding in WA's theatre circles over
the sacking of understudies from a production of The King and I.
The nasty behind-the-scenes squabble is being acted out daily and publicly
on Theatre Australia's website discussion board.
It was a decision to order three understudies to exit, stage left from the
Regal Theatre and not come back that kicked off the feud last week.
"Anyone involved with the show or any shows knows the rampant favouritism
and politics that goes on, but this is too much,‘ was how the first salvo
began.
"Sacking talented volunteers, who in all honesty, carried a show where
there were a lot of sub-par elements from paid professionals.‘
The understudies had volunteered their services for the experience, but
also because the show was being produced and marketed by the Multiple
Sclerosis Society to raise money for the charity.
"I am disgusted by the way all understudies have been treated in this
production. However, I will speak only of my own experience as understudy to
the king,‘ wrote actor, student and father Joe Isaia.
"I attended every rehearsal, shaved my head, attended 21 sessions at a
solarium and kept my end of the bargain completely.
"I also booked and paid for 32 gold reserve tickets.‘
For agreeing to the understudy role Joe was guaranteed three performances,
two Saturday matinees and one last Wednesday night.
But after the Wednesday show, Joe was contacted by the MS Society's
marketing and sales manager David Bugden and told he'd been dumped and was no
longer needed for Saturday.
"He informed me that there had been some missed cues, dropped lines,
non-appearance of important props and two phone calls from disgruntled
patrons.‘
On the same day, two other understudies were given the same message and
according to Joe's blast none of them was offered any support by the King and
I's director.
"The net result is a woman I have known for over 15 years, who attended my
engagement, wedding, 40th birthday and who I originally played this role
opposite, did not use her considerable clout to right what I believe has been
a reprehensible wrong.‘
He finished with a note to the director asking her if she knew the exchange
rate for 30 pieces of silver.
On the back of Joe's stinging attack, the website chatter among theatre
goers and those in the business has been deafening.
"Personally, if I were a fellow cast member and this was the only reason
given for the sacking, I'd be walking or at least refusing to perform the
Saturday matinee without the understudies,‘ Grant wrote.
"Every person I heard talking about the show I went to loved the
understudies,‘ Ashimo said.
Worried about the damage the issue might do, the MS Society posted a
response which pointed out the dreadful nature of the chronic neurological
disease.
"In WA alone, we are now averaging 16 newly diagnosed people with MS each
month,‘ Mr Bugden wrote. "There is no cause, there is no cure.‘
But Mr Bugden did not go into the reasons the understudies were given the
boot.
"The MS Society will always ensure compliance with all contractual and
legal requirements relating not only to this musical theatre production, but
all and any other undertakings,‘ he said.
Understanding the valuable role of the society, Inside Cover decided to
wait until the King and I performances concluded yesterday and leave until
last the website posting which wins the over-acting and reacting award.
The winning website posting is addressed to Mr Bugden and is obviously from
one of the understudies' friends.
"I don't know who you are, but I hate you,‘ the anonymous person wrote.
"You made my friend cry and for that you will pay. Watch your back.‘
IC would advise that person to watch theirs because the police
might be coming up behind them soon.
SZ: MEDIUM
Re: misunderstandings
Thu, 4 Nov 2004, 10:33 pmI'm backing Craig up 100%.
I visit this site at least every couple of days, but haven't been posted much until recently. I saw the furore, but didn't particularly want to start reading the posts, as I knew I'd feel compelled to read them all. The first I read about it was in the "Inside Cover" as my Mum mentioned something along the lines of "what's that website you look at again? It's in the paper."
So, I read it, interested to know how it got in the paper. I was somewhat perturbed that it seemed to be reporting a slanging match. I didn't end up reading all of the posts, but I did look for some of those mentioned. This made me annoyed as the write up was distinctly holy (and I'm not talking religion). Fair enough, comment on the heated discussions, but at least report it accurately (is that an oxymoron?).
I spent a bit of time looking for the "anon" quoted, and then for the retraction mentioned by Craig or Grant, couldn't see it. I got annoyed at the way the MS Society had apparently excused the treatment of these people by stating their worthy cause. I read through all these posts that were slanging, back-biting and accusing which made me feel grumpy too. It was disconcerting to see that several quotes had been used out of context and thus, as Craig stated, made more of statements that weren't that important, and shouldn't have been given such weight.
It has made me a lot more sceptical of the reporting in the West. Yes, I too have read "Inside Cover" and got the impression it was poking a bit of fun generally, but this wasn't fun. How about having less information in the paper, it being a little thinner, rather than stirring up even more trouble? Just a thought.
The best part of the whole bunch that I read was right down the bottom, a bit of repartee between Craig & Crispy I recall. Nice work guys. What can I say? Craig, I'm a fan. I can only think of cliches at this point, otherwise I'd say something cool.
I think I'm done.
Jess
I visit this site at least every couple of days, but haven't been posted much until recently. I saw the furore, but didn't particularly want to start reading the posts, as I knew I'd feel compelled to read them all. The first I read about it was in the "Inside Cover" as my Mum mentioned something along the lines of "what's that website you look at again? It's in the paper."
So, I read it, interested to know how it got in the paper. I was somewhat perturbed that it seemed to be reporting a slanging match. I didn't end up reading all of the posts, but I did look for some of those mentioned. This made me annoyed as the write up was distinctly holy (and I'm not talking religion). Fair enough, comment on the heated discussions, but at least report it accurately (is that an oxymoron?).
I spent a bit of time looking for the "anon" quoted, and then for the retraction mentioned by Craig or Grant, couldn't see it. I got annoyed at the way the MS Society had apparently excused the treatment of these people by stating their worthy cause. I read through all these posts that were slanging, back-biting and accusing which made me feel grumpy too. It was disconcerting to see that several quotes had been used out of context and thus, as Craig stated, made more of statements that weren't that important, and shouldn't have been given such weight.
It has made me a lot more sceptical of the reporting in the West. Yes, I too have read "Inside Cover" and got the impression it was poking a bit of fun generally, but this wasn't fun. How about having less information in the paper, it being a little thinner, rather than stirring up even more trouble? Just a thought.
The best part of the whole bunch that I read was right down the bottom, a bit of repartee between Craig & Crispy I recall. Nice work guys. What can I say? Craig, I'm a fan. I can only think of cliches at this point, otherwise I'd say something cool.
I think I'm done.
Jess