King and I reviews?
Mon, 18 Oct 2004, 12:24 amWalter Plinge50 posts in thread
King and I reviews?
Mon, 18 Oct 2004, 12:24 amHi,
Has anyone seen the King and I in Perth? Any thoughts or reviews??
I'm thinking of seeing it this week.
Re: Pro-amlet, Pro-ince of Deutsch Mark
Tue, 19 Oct 2004, 08:50 pmWalter Plinge
Thankyou so much. I've been feeling like I'm going crazy observing the debate that has been going on in another forum - most posters would make a claim without any backing support, and nitpick to find anything wrong with the show, and tear it to pieces.
I'm a cast member in the 'King and I', but I'd really like to remain under my psuedonym.
Aside from the $20 insurance fee (which, as Greg says, is simply another payment that we all have to pay at some point or another in theatre), I have been incredibly impressed by the attitude that the MS society and Onstage productions have shown. Obviously, I can't comment on the financial side of things, but we have always been reminded that all profits will be going to the MS society and not, as one person put it, the 'papered' pockets of sponsors and organisers.
Performing is my life, and to be able to perform for a worthy cause is a wonderful opportunity. The audiences have all seemed to enjoy the show, too. I can't really comment on value for money, but I think that the costs have been somewhat misrepresented - the costs quoted are of the most expensive seats, in addition to the BOCS surcharge (which does not apply if tickets are booked through the MS society). Further discounts also can apply for frequent theatre patrons, as well as concessions for those applicable people.
Makeup and hair gel costs were voluntary - the production simply gave us the option for using them or providing our own. All jewelry was provided free of charge. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that we or the audience members are being 'exploited' in any way, based on unfounded accusations and out of context claims.
"Pro-am" simply refers to the fact that there is a combination of professional performers in the cast (either performing here for free or a minimal cost) and amateurs.
I know that some people are against this whole concept, and I respect that. I, however, think that this is no different to any other charity function, where basic costs are paid for and the revenue goes to charity. I would ask that these people please do not criticise the way that this production has been run without a basis. I and all the other cast members have worked for months in order to produce a show that will raise funds for the right reasons, and I hope that people can understand and respect that, even if they do not agree with this venture. Let those that do work towards helping people in society who need it.
I'm a cast member in the 'King and I', but I'd really like to remain under my psuedonym.
Aside from the $20 insurance fee (which, as Greg says, is simply another payment that we all have to pay at some point or another in theatre), I have been incredibly impressed by the attitude that the MS society and Onstage productions have shown. Obviously, I can't comment on the financial side of things, but we have always been reminded that all profits will be going to the MS society and not, as one person put it, the 'papered' pockets of sponsors and organisers.
Performing is my life, and to be able to perform for a worthy cause is a wonderful opportunity. The audiences have all seemed to enjoy the show, too. I can't really comment on value for money, but I think that the costs have been somewhat misrepresented - the costs quoted are of the most expensive seats, in addition to the BOCS surcharge (which does not apply if tickets are booked through the MS society). Further discounts also can apply for frequent theatre patrons, as well as concessions for those applicable people.
Makeup and hair gel costs were voluntary - the production simply gave us the option for using them or providing our own. All jewelry was provided free of charge. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that we or the audience members are being 'exploited' in any way, based on unfounded accusations and out of context claims.
"Pro-am" simply refers to the fact that there is a combination of professional performers in the cast (either performing here for free or a minimal cost) and amateurs.
I know that some people are against this whole concept, and I respect that. I, however, think that this is no different to any other charity function, where basic costs are paid for and the revenue goes to charity. I would ask that these people please do not criticise the way that this production has been run without a basis. I and all the other cast members have worked for months in order to produce a show that will raise funds for the right reasons, and I hope that people can understand and respect that, even if they do not agree with this venture. Let those that do work towards helping people in society who need it.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···