King and I reviews?

Greg Ross wrote:
> It does seem that
> with some people, pro-am productions walk a knife edge, in
> terms of being seen either to offer experience in exchange
> for effort / talent, or as the great Satan – slave labour.

G'day Greg

People can make their own choices, and you are absolutely right, these productions can offer great experience and be a heck of a lot of fun. It doesn't feel like labour if it's a labour of love.

I'm still not sure what 'pro-am' really means, though...popular usage suggests someone is making money while someone else is getting ripped off. I've nothing specifically against anyone making money; that's a major goal for both pro and am. But it is worrying to hear of actors being manipulated or misinformed. Can anyone explain what the $20 fee was for? What IS the situation with insurance cover for participants? If this fee is part of a 'membership' fee to be part of a co-op, does this mean that members are now liable in the event of loss or risk...?



> One person stated that the ticket cost is too expensive for
> the quality of the performance. The general public (the
> market) will decide – if the show is worth it, they’ll sell,
> if itÂ’s not, they wonÂ’t.

This is true, but there is also a big delay effect. Because an individual can't really judge the quality of the show until after they've attended, and usually only attends once, the main way they can personally effect influence in the way you say is by not attending the NEXT production. So, perhaps unfairly, it has a far-reaching effect on future productions and the industry in general.
The only way the market can have an immediate effect is by word of mouth, expressing an opinion - which is exactly what the person you refer to is doing.



>Besides, I would have thought that
> any show which helps raise the accepted ticket price is a
> good thing for all theatre companies, professional and amateur.

Yes, so long as the ticket price rises while the perception of value remains constant. In the concept of 'value for money', it's not bad for the industry if the market will accept 'value for more money', but it hurts if consumers are buying 'less value for more money'.

And, from reading the latest posts, this appears to be under some debate?


> The startling and ill-considered comment on these pages, to
> the effect that nobody should go to the show, is in marked
> contrast to the review given by Ron Banks in todayÂ’s (Tuesday
> 19th October) West Australian.


It sounds like a decent show. Professional reviewers, however, are possibly not good judges of value-for-money, as they never pay for tickets...in fact they get paid to attend. The question 'Is it worth it?' can really only be answered by the paying punters.


Cheers,
Craig