King and I reviews?

Greg Ross wrote:
>
> Neither the MS Society here in WA, nor Dave Bugden had any
> previous experience in musical theatre, however the MS
> Society in South Australia has a successful record of
> presenting musical theatre as a tried and true method of
> fund-raising and it was felt the formula could just as
> successfully be applied over here.




Thanks Greg, for clarifying some key points which up 'til now were being published as hearsay.

I don't intend by this to be rubbing anyone's nose in it, as I trust people are aware enough to be learning from their own mistakes. But it still bears signposting, as a warning to others, on both sides of the production fence.

Ethically I think 'Pro-Am' is a dodgy phrase, especially when, as you assure, nobody in the cast is being paid. Had it been proudly advertised as 'amateur', the pressure that led to some of these decisions would have been off, and observers could enjoy the show for what it is.

This is closely linked with the seemingly high ticket prices. Being a charity fundraiser, it was probably justified, but in light of other gossip to the contrary, and the apparently varying consistency of the performance, it has bred suspicion regarding this and any other similar fund-raising shows. The term 'Pro-Am' is trying to add prestige, but in fact comes across as slightly dishonest.


I don't know how many understudy roles we're talking about here, but the general practice would be to stagger their appearances, so that on any one night the majority of the cast are experienced, and the understudies are more easily able to blend into the existing cast. The way they have been organized seems a mistake due to inexperience.

In fact, it surprises me a bit that understudies were an option in the first place - that's usually only reserved for those professional musicals with an extremely long run, or for community theatre which is encouraging everyone in their club to get a chance on stage. For a short-run show which is primarily a fundraising exercise, it seems an unnecessary complication unless it was clear that some of the amateur leads could not commit to the full season, or were not deemed capable to. But of course, the more performers are involved, the greater the network of family and friends likely to become paying customers...so the concept seems to have an obvious ulterior motive.

'Pro-Am' quite well expresses the dichotomy that exists here between the lack of theatrical experience and the need to make 'sane commercial decisions'; the reliance on volunteer labour but the inability to treat them as members of a community; the charitable creed versus the harshness of business practice.
It may have been wiser to have chosen either 'Pro' or 'Am' but not both.


Cheers,
Craig