King and I reviews?

Greg Ross wrote:
"As someone else has rightly said, the theatre community in Perth is very close and there is a possibility that good intentions and long term friendships may have led to some unusual promises and non-standard practises being introduced. Which is not to infer anything nefarious, quite the opposite – a wish to make sure much loved friends etc, had as much opportunity as possible to appear on stage. As an example, some would find the circumstance where only the understudies appeared in the major roles in some shows, as not best-practice, for a pro-am show. I don’t think 30 pieces if silver were involved, rather the heartfelt desire to look after a treasured friend."


I resent the inference you make here. You were not privy to the conversations which lead to casting decisions. From my own actual experience I was assured that all casting decisions were made with the greatest professional intent in mind. The conversation and subsequent agreement I had with the Director, a woman given the responsibility for casting the production, was clear and precise. The fact that this agreement was not honoured does, in my opinion, have a touch of "30 pieces of silver"


Greg Ross wrote:
"In that knowledge, one must question the decision to use only understudies in the Wednesday performance. Dave Bugden found himself in a dreadful position, the overall performance was well below the standard set by the normal cast and he was on the receiving end of complaints (more than a couple unfortunately). "

I can only speak from my own personal experience, Greg. My question to Dave was what element of this dreadfull performance was I responsible for?

All I asked of Dave Bugden, was for him to have the decency to put in writing his reasoning behind his decision not to allow me to make the Sat matinee performance. A small ask considering the amount of unpaid time I put into this production and the shoddy treatment I have recieved as a result.

Greg Ross wrote:
"We all know that no matter how many rehearsals we diligently attend, nothing replaces the acute learning curve of an actual performance and the consequent ability to hone and fine tune."

With respect Greg, The leads playing 6 shows and the understudies performing 3 shows is a difference of only three. Hardly providing such a vast "acute learning curve" or "consequent ability to hone and fine tune"

Greg Ross wrote:
"An understudy is automatically placed in an invidious position, not having that same benefit, no matter how talented."

An understudy is still an Actor and a Human Being and ought to be treated with dignity and respect and I am afraid that no matter what spin you try to place on this whole process the stench will linger.

Greg Ross wrote:
"He loathed doing it and never imagined he would find himself in that position. The understudies hadnÂ’t, (through no fault of their own), had the chance to develop their roles to the level the main actors had, although their talents are felt to be just as good. Of course, debate will rage over his decision, the merits or otherwise of pro-am theatre and the unusual practise of putting on a show with only understudies, however, with no malice whatsoever and a heavy heart, he took the only sane commercial decision possible."

A decision he claims sole responsibility for in spite of the fact that he has, by his own admission, little to no experience in the Theatre world. Surely the only sane "commercial", "honourable", moral, and ethical decision would have been to consult with those experienced people charged with putting the show togther(The actors included) before he made the decision which wil in due course have it's natural consequence. "Every Bug has its' Den" ;-)