understudies

Having 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

Gary Adshead wrote:
>
> Having 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


Thanks, Gary, for visiting this site and sharing your view.
As you thus agree to be a part of this public discussion, I'll pick up and run with it further.

There's a difference between the public discussion happening here and the subsequent articles in Inside Cover. Messages on this site may often appear fragmented or seem to leave out vital parts of the argument, but that is because they are read in the context of the whole...i.e. there is no need to reiterate the entire argument just to add on a new point because it is assumed the reader can read, or at least has access to, every other point that precedes it in the thread.

You make it clear in your above statement that your newspaper column is obviously limited in this regard, as you wonder whether some of the feedback you've gotten for your articles has been because people had not read the first article and were therefore not getting the context. Someone reading here for the first time can quickly catch up, whereas not so many of your readers can run out and obtain last Monday's paper.

But even reading both of your articles (as I did) was not enough to give a clear and accurate context to the debate. In fact, the very nature of your selection and juxtaposition gave overdue emphasis to statements that did not deserve it, and sensationalized others to the point where I doubt that a clear understanding was given to anyone previously unaware of what was being argued here.

Just to take examples from the text you've kindly reproduced above, you give the impression that a professional theatre company has ruthlessly dismissed the volunteer understudies for missing cues, etc, while favoring paid professionals who were perhaps sub-standard. You then make a point of how the industry seems to be throwing a tantrum about it. In my view this is giving a rather unfavorable impression of the professional industry in Perth.

But you neglect to say that ALL performers were volunteers (the paid workers were not part of the cast, that was a separate issue involving different areas of expertise).
You do not make clear that the company is NOT professional (references to the Regal Theatre, 'paid professionals' and 'those in the business' make it sound like the company and the director are professional...the MS Society in WA has never been involved in theatre before, and the director accused in the '30 pieces of silver' quote may not have righted the wrong, but also may not have had any such executive power to do so.)
Your juxtaposition of Joe Isaia's quote and Mr Bugden's reply make it sound as though Joe was the one who had missed cues and misplaced props, etc, whereas the point of his argument was that he had NOT. Had you made this clear his emotion may have read more sympathetically.
Your quote from the MS society makes them sound like they rather stupidly replied to the sacking of understudies with a total non-sequitur about the tragedy of the disease, but deliberately avoided commenting on the issue. The fact is, that quote was made BEFORE the sacking, and was merely about explaining where the funds would go. Nobody from the MS has as yet made a statement, sympathetic or otherwise, in regards to the sackings.
You conclude rather ominously by quoting an anonymous distressed person who made an angry threat, and quite rightly infer that this could be considered illegal. But by affording it such prominence (nominating it your 'winning website posting') rather belittles the number of rational, well-considered arguments here. Most of us would agree such a threat is not welcome in this argument, and we resent you lumping us in the same basket.
And you finally fail to mention that the Theatre Australia website (to the general readership a professional-sounding name) is not monitored or largely contributed to by any official organizations, but is a free forum for all and sundry, mainly amateur and, in this instance, mainly people directly disadvantaged by in the event. That you make it sound like the professional industry is involved in nasty squabbling is also giving a damaging impression.

Your second article a few days later was no clearer...there was a nicely histrionic quote from Greg Ross which you took out of context and made it sound as if he was condemning the amateur company at The Regal, when in fact he was rather calling for such condemnation to stop. Mr Ross was made to seem an authority of the Theatre Website, and yet the two statements of his you quoted were by no means the popular view, and were seen by some here as erroneous.
There seemed little point to the follow up article except to create a tabloid-like intrigue.



But as you say, there's nothing wrong with all of this - given the understanding that your column is tongue-in-cheek, somewhat sensationalist, and tries to preserve an aura of 'from the horse's mouth' inside information. Your job is really no different from most of ours: to provide light entertainment. I just reply to your above post so you understand why there remains a healthy cynicism.



Break a pencil (or the journo's equivalent).

Craig

I'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

but it is hurtful to others when a journo like Gary
doesnÂ’t get the facts right and abuses his position for the sake of a cheap shot for his WA newspaper . Read the article

http://www.ifmo.com.au/Gary%20Adshead/Gary%20Adshead%201.jpg

Olive

And it's interesting that for at least the past 10 years this Holz guy has been in trouble for the same thing, over and over again.

That is the point , articles written in a news paper by a quasi alcoholic looking for fame in a parochial town is worrisome. No defending the Holzs but one has look at the source of information, perhaps you should search Gary with GoogleÂ…

Olive