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.
Walter PlingeMon, 18 Oct 2004, 12:24 am
Hi,
Has anyone seen the King and I in Perth? Any thoughts or reviews??
I'm thinking of seeing it this week.
Walter PlingeMon, 18 Oct 2004, 04:08 pm
Re: King and I reviews?
Sarahh wrote:
>
> I'm thinking of seeing it this week.
Please don't. Read up all about it on this website.
>
> I'm thinking of seeing it this week.
Please don't. Read up all about it on this website.
Greg RossTue, 19 Oct 2004, 09:05 am
Re: Pro-am, To be, Or Not To Be.
I’ve been following with interest, (and occasionally contributing), to the debate raging over the current MS Society production of “The King and I.” 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.
So far, the only remark that has caused me a little concern, is that all cast members are alleged to have been asked to pay a compulsory $20,00 fee / donation for their involvement. I canÂ’t quite put a handle on that, but then again, IÂ’ve yet to be involved in any production where it didnÂ’t cost me money, not forgetting that fees often help cover the cost of injury insurance.
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 it’s not, they won’t. 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.
There was a production of “Aladdin” at the Regal not so long ago, where it’s fair to say, the major advertised “star” probably had less talent than any other cast member, but that person’s notoriety helped pull the punters in, to what was a great showcase for the genuinely talented people involved. Tits, fannies, dicks or rabbit ears, it’s all marketing, designed to sell tickets, yet this production of “The King and I” hasn’t stooped to any of that, it’s actually been pushing the concept of raising funds for a charity.
In the long run, it’s up to each of us as individuals, to decide whether to audition for and consequently accept an unpaid role in any production, it’s certainly a time honoured way of securing a full time job – working for free for a few days to prove your worth – it’s called Work Experience.
Here, it is important to state that the community should always be wary of the possibility of unscrupulous promoters abusing the system, though I’m given to understand, that often the difficulty is actually getting paid after working for so-called professional productions – once the promoters, producers and directors disappear back east, the chances of getting paid reduce dramatically.
In a small city such as Perth, we are very lucky to have such a vibrant live theatre culture and even luckier that some people, through hard work, guts and sheer talent, are actually able to survive and make a living as professional actors, but for many others, productions such as “The King and I” offer valuable experience and add considerable depth to their resume.
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.
So far, the only remark that has caused me a little concern, is that all cast members are alleged to have been asked to pay a compulsory $20,00 fee / donation for their involvement. I canÂ’t quite put a handle on that, but then again, IÂ’ve yet to be involved in any production where it didnÂ’t cost me money, not forgetting that fees often help cover the cost of injury insurance.
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 it’s not, they won’t. 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.
There was a production of “Aladdin” at the Regal not so long ago, where it’s fair to say, the major advertised “star” probably had less talent than any other cast member, but that person’s notoriety helped pull the punters in, to what was a great showcase for the genuinely talented people involved. Tits, fannies, dicks or rabbit ears, it’s all marketing, designed to sell tickets, yet this production of “The King and I” hasn’t stooped to any of that, it’s actually been pushing the concept of raising funds for a charity.
In the long run, it’s up to each of us as individuals, to decide whether to audition for and consequently accept an unpaid role in any production, it’s certainly a time honoured way of securing a full time job – working for free for a few days to prove your worth – it’s called Work Experience.
Here, it is important to state that the community should always be wary of the possibility of unscrupulous promoters abusing the system, though I’m given to understand, that often the difficulty is actually getting paid after working for so-called professional productions – once the promoters, producers and directors disappear back east, the chances of getting paid reduce dramatically.
In a small city such as Perth, we are very lucky to have such a vibrant live theatre culture and even luckier that some people, through hard work, guts and sheer talent, are actually able to survive and make a living as professional actors, but for many others, productions such as “The King and I” offer valuable experience and add considerable depth to their resume.
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.
crgwllmsTue, 19 Oct 2004, 12:24 pm
Re: Pro-amlet, Pro-ince of Deutsch Mark
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
> 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
Walter PlingeTue, 19 Oct 2004, 08:50 pm
Re: Pro-amlet, Pro-ince of Deutsch Mark
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.
Walter PlingeWed, 20 Oct 2004, 12:49 am
Re: Pro-amlet, Pro-ince of Deutsch Mark
Thanks for this response - good to hear your experiences. I would just like to make the point that "pro/am" in this case does not apply to the cast but rather the the support team and I believe most of these are expenses only. None of the cast are being paid and all accepted their roles as chorus or principal knowing that they wouldn't be. The "pro" part of it would apply to the professional stature of some cast and crew rather than the normal fee attached to such work.
crgwllmsWed, 20 Oct 2004, 11:53 pm
Re: Anna and the King of Pro-am
Lianna wrote:
>
> Thanks for this response - good to hear your experiences. I
> would just like to make the point that "pro/am" in this case
> does not apply to the cast but rather the the support team
> and I believe most of these are expenses only. None of the
> cast are being paid and all accepted their roles as chorus or
> principal knowing that they wouldn't be. The "pro" part of it
> would apply to the professional stature of some cast and crew
> rather than the normal fee attached to such work.
Thanks for clarifying. But I'd suggest "Volunteer" is a much clearer and more accurate (not to mention drawing a more sympathetic response) term to use for all unpaid personnel.
The term 'Pro/Am' gets bandied about a lot, usually in reference to sporting tournaments.
In theatre shows, we hear it used the way you just did, to denote the varied experience status of the cast, or perhaps because some are paid while some are not.
But there is actually no such thing as 'pro/am rights' to a show...you either buy the professional rights, or the (much discounted) amateur rights. There's no in-between. So if a show is not paying most of it's volunteers, and qualifies to pay amateur rights, it's an amateur show...even if you had Hugh Jackman in the cast.
Legally, I was under the impression that volunteer workers for any organization were still covered by an industry code of practice that included things like public liability insurance (technically, as an unpaid volunteer, are you part of the public?). Being required to pay a fee to cover the insurance still sounds to me like an infringement. But then again, insurance laws have gone so crazy the past few years I don't really know what is required.
Can anyone with the full facts please get back to me on my email? Cast, crew, management....your confidentiality will be respected. I'd just like to understand the proper story!
Cheers,
Craig
crgwllms@bigpond.com
[%sig%]
>
> Thanks for this response - good to hear your experiences. I
> would just like to make the point that "pro/am" in this case
> does not apply to the cast but rather the the support team
> and I believe most of these are expenses only. None of the
> cast are being paid and all accepted their roles as chorus or
> principal knowing that they wouldn't be. The "pro" part of it
> would apply to the professional stature of some cast and crew
> rather than the normal fee attached to such work.
Thanks for clarifying. But I'd suggest "Volunteer" is a much clearer and more accurate (not to mention drawing a more sympathetic response) term to use for all unpaid personnel.
The term 'Pro/Am' gets bandied about a lot, usually in reference to sporting tournaments.
In theatre shows, we hear it used the way you just did, to denote the varied experience status of the cast, or perhaps because some are paid while some are not.
But there is actually no such thing as 'pro/am rights' to a show...you either buy the professional rights, or the (much discounted) amateur rights. There's no in-between. So if a show is not paying most of it's volunteers, and qualifies to pay amateur rights, it's an amateur show...even if you had Hugh Jackman in the cast.
Legally, I was under the impression that volunteer workers for any organization were still covered by an industry code of practice that included things like public liability insurance (technically, as an unpaid volunteer, are you part of the public?). Being required to pay a fee to cover the insurance still sounds to me like an infringement. But then again, insurance laws have gone so crazy the past few years I don't really know what is required.
Can anyone with the full facts please get back to me on my email? Cast, crew, management....your confidentiality will be respected. I'd just like to understand the proper story!
Cheers,
Craig
crgwllms@bigpond.com
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeThu, 21 Oct 2004, 10:28 am
Re: Pro-amlet, Pro-ince of Deutsch Mark
Lianna wrote:
>
> None of the
> cast are being paid and all accepted their roles as chorus or
> principal knowing that they wouldn't be.
Ho ho... yeah right.
>
> None of the
> cast are being paid and all accepted their roles as chorus or
> principal knowing that they wouldn't be.
Ho ho... yeah right.
Walter PlingeThu, 21 Oct 2004, 10:37 am
Re: Pro-amlet, Pro-ince of Deutsch Mark
whatever wrote:
>
> Lianna wrote:
> >
> > None of the
> > cast are being paid and all accepted their roles as chorus or
> > principal knowing that they wouldn't be.
>
> Ho ho... yeah right.
A fact, I think you'll find. There are several professionally trained performers in the cast, and, as posted before, no cast member is being paid.
>
> Lianna wrote:
> >
> > None of the
> > cast are being paid and all accepted their roles as chorus or
> > principal knowing that they wouldn't be.
>
> Ho ho... yeah right.
A fact, I think you'll find. There are several professionally trained performers in the cast, and, as posted before, no cast member is being paid.
georgiaThu, 21 Oct 2004, 04:03 pm
Re: Anna and the King of Pro-am
From my insurance research i have done in my life....
Public liability covers the company and everyone involved and anything they construct (ie if a piece of set falls on an audience members head, it's your insurance, but if they fall down the theatre stairs it's the venues responsibility...)... membership fees, as far as i know don't have anything to do with this... that's just part of the Incorporated association thing... need to read up on that again, it's been a few years...
Volunteers are not covered under workers compensation as Workers comp is determined on the wages paid - this includes co-op productions where people get a share of profits as these are considered wages...
You are able to get volunteer accident insurance to cover the vollies but if you don't have anything like that and the set falls on a volunteer, they're stuffed! and so are you...cos you have to pay... and won't be insured and that's bad...
So perhaps the membership fee covers this workers comp thing? you'd think it would be easier to pay them a small amount and have them covered under the same workers comp as those people that are 'pro' and get paid! but i think that's unethical...
I hope this explains the insurance thing... you probably all knew it anyway and i'm just repeating..
anywho,
have fun,
Georgia
Public liability covers the company and everyone involved and anything they construct (ie if a piece of set falls on an audience members head, it's your insurance, but if they fall down the theatre stairs it's the venues responsibility...)... membership fees, as far as i know don't have anything to do with this... that's just part of the Incorporated association thing... need to read up on that again, it's been a few years...
Volunteers are not covered under workers compensation as Workers comp is determined on the wages paid - this includes co-op productions where people get a share of profits as these are considered wages...
You are able to get volunteer accident insurance to cover the vollies but if you don't have anything like that and the set falls on a volunteer, they're stuffed! and so are you...cos you have to pay... and won't be insured and that's bad...
So perhaps the membership fee covers this workers comp thing? you'd think it would be easier to pay them a small amount and have them covered under the same workers comp as those people that are 'pro' and get paid! but i think that's unethical...
I hope this explains the insurance thing... you probably all knew it anyway and i'm just repeating..
anywho,
have fun,
Georgia
Walter PlingeThu, 21 Oct 2004, 07:54 pm
Re: King and I reviews?
The King and I
Regal Theatre
Saturday Matinee
I will never go to a matinee performance again. The reasons have nothing to do with show itself, just the audience. Talking during songs, mobile phones ringing during the death scene, clapping along as if the waltz was a barn-dance, munching on a huge bag of prawn crackers etc etc etc. Anyway, on to the show itself.
I had the pleasure of seeing Joe Isaia in the role of the King (matinee = understudy) and thought his performance was amazing. The energy and power of his performance was wonderful to watch. He made the show for me. Kathy Jenkins as Anna was gorgeous to watch and listen to. The supporting cast were also strong with stand out performances by Daniel Mitton as The Kralahome and Charles ? as Lun Tha. I thoroughly enjoyed the principal performances.
However, this show is not worth $35-$50 a ticket. I understand that proceeds are going to a good cause (MS Society) but for that sort of money you do expect a lot more. This was not a great show - and not because of the Principals. The whole thing just had an "average" feel (cast excepted, of course). The chorus looked tatty, the set looked sad, the microphones didn't work and so on. The MS Society are so focused on making money that they have neglected the basics. I am sure they are making plenty of money out of this considering the actors didn't get paid and they have a sold out season.
These things aside it is Rodgers and Hammerstein - just a bit of entertainment which is family friendly but very long. It was enjoyable - all because of the principal cast who did a great job.
Regal Theatre
Saturday Matinee
I will never go to a matinee performance again. The reasons have nothing to do with show itself, just the audience. Talking during songs, mobile phones ringing during the death scene, clapping along as if the waltz was a barn-dance, munching on a huge bag of prawn crackers etc etc etc. Anyway, on to the show itself.
I had the pleasure of seeing Joe Isaia in the role of the King (matinee = understudy) and thought his performance was amazing. The energy and power of his performance was wonderful to watch. He made the show for me. Kathy Jenkins as Anna was gorgeous to watch and listen to. The supporting cast were also strong with stand out performances by Daniel Mitton as The Kralahome and Charles ? as Lun Tha. I thoroughly enjoyed the principal performances.
However, this show is not worth $35-$50 a ticket. I understand that proceeds are going to a good cause (MS Society) but for that sort of money you do expect a lot more. This was not a great show - and not because of the Principals. The whole thing just had an "average" feel (cast excepted, of course). The chorus looked tatty, the set looked sad, the microphones didn't work and so on. The MS Society are so focused on making money that they have neglected the basics. I am sure they are making plenty of money out of this considering the actors didn't get paid and they have a sold out season.
These things aside it is Rodgers and Hammerstein - just a bit of entertainment which is family friendly but very long. It was enjoyable - all because of the principal cast who did a great job.
Walter PlingeThu, 21 Oct 2004, 08:15 pm
Re: Pro-amlet, Pro-ince of Deutsch Mark
I wrote to the above post without checking this debate first!!!
The $20 is said to cover tea / coffee and so on - I, personally, think this is a little rude considering that all the actors are working for free - and very long hours they are working too (believe me, I would know) Of course the actors knew they weren't being paid - however at least one member of the cast recieved a free advertisement as payment.
The actors are expected to pay $6 for make-up.
The MS Society, however, have NOOOO idea how to treat actors.
Today, ALL the understudies were fired (funny term when you don't get paid). I have seen two performances of the show - one understudy, one not. Personally, I preferred the understudies - a much better cast all round. However, 3 people complained about the quality of the show on the Wednesday understudy performance. I don't know who or what they mentioned but today there are some very angry actors in Perth. And I don't blame them. They were promised a certain about of performances and this was not fullfilled. I could understand if they were terrible (but then, I'd wonder why they were cast in the first place) but the fact is they were not, in fact far from it. If anything, I'd be firing some of the "real" cast and letting the understudies take over.
I think the MS Society need to have a look at how they are running this. They have already advertised "Les Miserables" - I wonder if they'll get a cast at all?
The $20 is said to cover tea / coffee and so on - I, personally, think this is a little rude considering that all the actors are working for free - and very long hours they are working too (believe me, I would know) Of course the actors knew they weren't being paid - however at least one member of the cast recieved a free advertisement as payment.
The actors are expected to pay $6 for make-up.
The MS Society, however, have NOOOO idea how to treat actors.
Today, ALL the understudies were fired (funny term when you don't get paid). I have seen two performances of the show - one understudy, one not. Personally, I preferred the understudies - a much better cast all round. However, 3 people complained about the quality of the show on the Wednesday understudy performance. I don't know who or what they mentioned but today there are some very angry actors in Perth. And I don't blame them. They were promised a certain about of performances and this was not fullfilled. I could understand if they were terrible (but then, I'd wonder why they were cast in the first place) but the fact is they were not, in fact far from it. If anything, I'd be firing some of the "real" cast and letting the understudies take over.
I think the MS Society need to have a look at how they are running this. They have already advertised "Les Miserables" - I wonder if they'll get a cast at all?
Walter PlingeThu, 21 Oct 2004, 08:21 pm
Re: King and I reviews?
The MS Society need to rethink how they go about these performances. Yes, it is for a good cause but it isn't being done in the right way.
It was good but not great. The leads / supporting cast were excellent - very strong performances in this area.
Not sure about the ticket prices?? I think a little too high considering recent performances for same cost.
It was good but not great. The leads / supporting cast were excellent - very strong performances in this area.
Not sure about the ticket prices?? I think a little too high considering recent performances for same cost.
PollyFri, 22 Oct 2004, 02:43 pm
Paid cast in King - at least one cast member is being paid.....
Lianna wrote:
> A fact, I think you'll find. There are several professionally
> trained performers in the cast, and, as posted before, no
> cast member is being paid.
Sorry Lianna, a friend of mine is one of the above-mentioned 'fired' understudies and it is a 'fact' that at least one of the principles is being paid (confirmed by the paid member in question) and I wouldn' t be surprised to find that there was more than one. I know that there are many cast members under the delusion that no cast member is being paid, but it is simply untrue.
I was at the infamous Wed show that determined the fate of the understudies. There were some problems, but I think it is a disgrace to treat any performer in this way and also an extreme and unnecessary measure on the basis of the performance I saw. As someone else mentioned on this forum the set and technical aspects of the show were pretty ordinary and probably contributed to the alleged "complaints" just as much if not more than the performances.
I thought the King was delightful; he really caught the essence of the role. Lady Tian gave the vocal performance of the night for me and for a first timer (first musical ever) the guy playing Lun Tao was brilliant. There that's my 50c worth! My sympathies to the understudies who have been denied their promised 3rd show. I know how much work you all put in and it's extremely poor form on the part of the MS Society to have handled the situation this way. Okay! really going now....
> A fact, I think you'll find. There are several professionally
> trained performers in the cast, and, as posted before, no
> cast member is being paid.
Sorry Lianna, a friend of mine is one of the above-mentioned 'fired' understudies and it is a 'fact' that at least one of the principles is being paid (confirmed by the paid member in question) and I wouldn' t be surprised to find that there was more than one. I know that there are many cast members under the delusion that no cast member is being paid, but it is simply untrue.
I was at the infamous Wed show that determined the fate of the understudies. There were some problems, but I think it is a disgrace to treat any performer in this way and also an extreme and unnecessary measure on the basis of the performance I saw. As someone else mentioned on this forum the set and technical aspects of the show were pretty ordinary and probably contributed to the alleged "complaints" just as much if not more than the performances.
I thought the King was delightful; he really caught the essence of the role. Lady Tian gave the vocal performance of the night for me and for a first timer (first musical ever) the guy playing Lun Tao was brilliant. There that's my 50c worth! My sympathies to the understudies who have been denied their promised 3rd show. I know how much work you all put in and it's extremely poor form on the part of the MS Society to have handled the situation this way. Okay! really going now....
BonnieFri, 22 Oct 2004, 03:51 pm
Sacking of King and I understudies
I attended the understudy performance on Wednesday evening with 10 others and we all really loved the show. The theatre was chockas and I heard nothing but praise for the understudy cast - In the loos post show and in the bar at interval also....Nothing but raves.
Especially for the understudy King... I got tingles during the whipping scene and shed a tear at the death bed scene which I thought was played beautifully. The guy playing Lun Tha was also great....a voice like honey and he looked amazing whenever on stage with his shirt off!! The duets with Tup Tim were really beautiful....Totally believed that they were star crossed lovers and everything...
I can't believe that the lot of them have been given the sack due to three complaints. What a kick in the guts for all of them who have given up much of their time and put in so much effort....Not to mention the fact that they don't appear to have been given an opportunity to remedy any glitches that may have occurred on Wednesday night (Mostly technical type stuff from what I could tell.) It looks like an arbitrary decision has been made and the understudies brushed aside without a thoughtÂ….
Why isn't the director going in to bat for her understudy cast who gave so much of themselves during rehearsals and the performances? Does this not seem odd to anyone else?
JoeMcFri, 22 Oct 2004, 04:59 pm
Re: Sacking of King and I understudies
May I just ask a few questions?
Is this show produced by;-
The MS Society?
Just a registered Trading Name?
Some other type of commercial entity?
Or is it an Incorporated Theatre Group?
Also ‘proceeds to charity’ - doesn’t mean much to me! Because this could mean any amount, that might be deemed appropriate to give, after the wash up?
Is this show produced by;-
The MS Society?
Just a registered Trading Name?
Some other type of commercial entity?
Or is it an Incorporated Theatre Group?
Also ‘proceeds to charity’ - doesn’t mean much to me! Because this could mean any amount, that might be deemed appropriate to give, after the wash up?
Walter PlingeFri, 22 Oct 2004, 05:28 pm
Re: Paid cast in King - at least one cast member is being paid..
Polly wrote:
>
> Lianna wrote:
> > A fact, I think you'll find. There are several professionally
> > trained performers in the cast, and, as posted before, no
> > cast member is being paid.
>
> Sorry Lianna, a friend of mine is one of the above-mentioned
> 'fired' understudies and it is a 'fact' that at least one of
> the principles is being paid (confirmed by the paid member in
> question) and I wouldn' t be surprised to find that there was
> more than one.
I find this very all very interesting, and don't wish to denegrate you or your source's information, as you've obviously received it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I just hope it's not me that's being paid as I've lost the cheque!
>
> Lianna wrote:
> > A fact, I think you'll find. There are several professionally
> > trained performers in the cast, and, as posted before, no
> > cast member is being paid.
>
> Sorry Lianna, a friend of mine is one of the above-mentioned
> 'fired' understudies and it is a 'fact' that at least one of
> the principles is being paid (confirmed by the paid member in
> question) and I wouldn' t be surprised to find that there was
> more than one.
I find this very all very interesting, and don't wish to denegrate you or your source's information, as you've obviously received it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I just hope it's not me that's being paid as I've lost the cheque!
PollyFri, 22 Oct 2004, 06:19 pm
Re: Paid cast in King - at least one cast member is being paid..
Nope not you Lianna :-) The cast member in question is of the male variety....as you are clearly in the cast I'm sure you can do the math....
chrissyFri, 22 Oct 2004, 07:01 pm
Re: Pro-amlet, Pro-ince of Deutsch Mark
A member of my family and a friend went to Wednesdays performance with the understudies and when they returned at 11.30 pm the reaction was one of praise with phrases like "fantastic evening" "such energy" "funny" "I shed a tear" [and these were 2 guys!!} Yes a comment was made about the expense of the tickets but hey this was a charity and a good cause so the expense was well worth it. I would like to say to the MS Society SHAME ON YOU for destroying the morale and integrity of both the understudies and the remaining principals of whom I asume had no idea of the sackings until the following evening. MS Society if you hope to perform another show I wish you luck in getting any actors to work with you as this has been a disgrace and as those understudies had 3 shows {I believe} to perform then has it occured to you that they would all have many family and friends booked in for the Saturday performance. I hope they cancel and demand their money back as they are not seeing whom they paid for.
JohnFri, 22 Oct 2004, 08:32 pm
Re: Sacking of King and I understudies
To the MS Society,
I am but a humble patron and my opinion would have absolutely no value to your committee. I have a background in amateur theatre and have been backstage and on stage on many occasions so I understand the commitment and dedication needed to ensure that an audience has been satisfied.
I can assure you the audience were well satisfied on Wednesday evening 20th October. I do not understand how you can sack a group of people who gave their all to represent you and did it with class. Have you another agenda? I have always assumed that the purpose of a show was to entertain and I am in no doubt that the audience were well entertained. All of the principals and cast gave wonderful performances and I am bewildered as to why the "Society" can be so cruel and totally blinkered in their decision to sack a talented body of people. You have not thought this through the ramifications will be with you for a long time I am disgusted!!!
I am but a humble patron and my opinion would have absolutely no value to your committee. I have a background in amateur theatre and have been backstage and on stage on many occasions so I understand the commitment and dedication needed to ensure that an audience has been satisfied.
I can assure you the audience were well satisfied on Wednesday evening 20th October. I do not understand how you can sack a group of people who gave their all to represent you and did it with class. Have you another agenda? I have always assumed that the purpose of a show was to entertain and I am in no doubt that the audience were well entertained. All of the principals and cast gave wonderful performances and I am bewildered as to why the "Society" can be so cruel and totally blinkered in their decision to sack a talented body of people. You have not thought this through the ramifications will be with you for a long time I am disgusted!!!
Walter PlingeFri, 22 Oct 2004, 10:23 pm
King and I sacking disgrace
In his 'wisdom' the manager in charge of the MS Society production of the King and I, known as 'Dave' has sacked the understudies before their final performance on Sunday. Apparently three (yes '3' out of thousands) MS Society members complained about some aspects of the show (which I won't mention because I don't want to upset the fantastic efforts of so many dedicated young kids) unrelated to the understudies. So they needed a scapegoat. I saw te show with the understudies and they were fantastic. The king was bold and entertaining, and anna had the best diction I've heard for a long time. Anyone involved with the show or any show knows the rampant favouratism and politics that goes on but this is too much. Sacking talented volunteers, who in all honesty, carried a show where there were a lot of sub-par elements from paid 'professionals'. I am a music professional, and if I was paid to do a job and didn't I'd expect to be sacked or unemployed. But it seems here that according to 'Dave' the unpaid understudy talent had a responsibility to carry the lighting, stage managing, chorus and band flaws. They should have inspired the choir to sing better (well they were singing themselves but hey, it's not all about THEM is it?), they should have kept the band in time (selfish, focusing on acting!), they should have made sure the props were placed correctly (well can't they talk AND drag a bed into place while in character and remaining audible), and they should have made sure the lighting didn't make mistakes (they really are one dimensional these actors!).
My mother has MS so I am all for this sort of fund raising, but actors have been exploited for too long. The Perth arts scene is too small for this constant pettiness and ignorance to run rampant, and the problem is that it continues up to the highest levels. I am disgusted that the director didn't stand up for them, and that the leads didn't stand up for what, in the end, is bound to affect them one day too. What if the leads said "no, we won't act that day, they deserve to be there, what are you gonna do about it Dave?"
To top it all off they were going to, and did, charge some of the cast for a program. And some of the cast were ungrateful about that! The nerve!
If anyone saw the show with the understudies and enjoyed their performances as I did, please send a letter of complaint to the MS Society.
My mother has MS so I am all for this sort of fund raising, but actors have been exploited for too long. The Perth arts scene is too small for this constant pettiness and ignorance to run rampant, and the problem is that it continues up to the highest levels. I am disgusted that the director didn't stand up for them, and that the leads didn't stand up for what, in the end, is bound to affect them one day too. What if the leads said "no, we won't act that day, they deserve to be there, what are you gonna do about it Dave?"
To top it all off they were going to, and did, charge some of the cast for a program. And some of the cast were ungrateful about that! The nerve!
If anyone saw the show with the understudies and enjoyed their performances as I did, please send a letter of complaint to the MS Society.
Walter PlingeFri, 22 Oct 2004, 11:32 pm
Re: Pro-amlet, Pro-ince of Deutsch Mark
G'day all. Thanks to those on this forum who have commented favorably on my performance in the K & I (probably my mum and dad).
Thought I might use this forum to voice my own opinion ecetera, ecetera, ecetera. Firstly let me say that I am disgusted with the way all understudies have been treated in this production, however I will speak only of my own experience as understudy to the King. When I was first offered the understudy role I'm not ashamed to say I was a little put out and at first was reluctant to take on the task. I am in full time study, married with two beautiful children and was aware that committing to such a large role was going to impose on both my family and my studies. When I called the director (Neroli Burton) to receive clarification as to precisely what would be expected of me as understudy, Neroli explained that I would be required to attend every rehearsal and that my reward was to be 3 performances: the two Sat matinees and the Wed night performance. It was at this point that Neroli informed me that the understudy for the role of Mrs Anna had also been offered the same deal and had accepted it. I asked for 24 hours to think the proposition over and discuss the commitment with Kylie (my good lady wife). I then called Neroli back the next day and based on the conversation I had with her the previous day accepted the role. I attended every rehearsal, shaved my head, attended 21 sessions at a solarium and kept my end of the bargain completely. (I drew the line at the obligatory $20 donation; It had cost me a fortune in fuel traveling three times a week from Boya to Carlisle.) I had also booked and paid for on my credit card 32 Gold reserve tickets. I felt this more than compensated for the $20 donation. I performed the 1st Sat matinee and was more than happy with the audience response and feedback after the show. (I understand that anything I say with regard to the standard of my own individual performance will sound a little hollow) I also performed the Wed night show and again was more than happy with the audience response( I had a lot of friends attend this show). It was on the following Thurs I was phoned by the executive producer, David Bugden (Senior Manager, Marketing and Sales Development for the M.S. society of W.A.) and informed that the understudies would not be required to perform in the following Sat matinee. When I asked David the obvious Why? he informed me that there had been some missed cues, dropped lines, non appearance of important props and 2 phone calls from disgruntled patrons. I asked him what any of this had to do with my performance and he replied that he understood I was getting the rough end of the stick. I told him this was not good enough and that I did not accept his decision. He replied I had no choice. (He was right). I then asked him to put in writing his reasons for not to allowing me perform the agreed number of shows. He refused. I got upsetÂ…. End of phone call. All sounds a little long winded - sorry!! just want to paint the pictureÂ… The net result is ..Neroli Burton, a woman I have known for over 15 years , who attended my engagement, wedding and 40th birthday. A woman I originally played this role opposite and a woman I have always held in high esteem as a trusted friend, did not, in her capacity as Director of this production, use her considerable clout to right what I believe has been a reprehensible wrong. All I asked of both Neroli and David Bugden was a clear and honest reason for not allowing me to perform a show I had been promised.
I believe this same supposed charity is intending to raise a production of "Les Mis" next year. I can only say to them that I hope the M.S. society treats its sufferers with a little more dignity than it does us amateur actors it uses to raise thousands of dollars in these ambiguous pro-am productions. The End.
P.S. Neroli if you see this please inform me of the current exchange rate for 30 pieces of silver.. Love Joe.
Thought I might use this forum to voice my own opinion ecetera, ecetera, ecetera. Firstly let me say that I am disgusted with the way all understudies have been treated in this production, however I will speak only of my own experience as understudy to the King. When I was first offered the understudy role I'm not ashamed to say I was a little put out and at first was reluctant to take on the task. I am in full time study, married with two beautiful children and was aware that committing to such a large role was going to impose on both my family and my studies. When I called the director (Neroli Burton) to receive clarification as to precisely what would be expected of me as understudy, Neroli explained that I would be required to attend every rehearsal and that my reward was to be 3 performances: the two Sat matinees and the Wed night performance. It was at this point that Neroli informed me that the understudy for the role of Mrs Anna had also been offered the same deal and had accepted it. I asked for 24 hours to think the proposition over and discuss the commitment with Kylie (my good lady wife). I then called Neroli back the next day and based on the conversation I had with her the previous day accepted the role. I attended every rehearsal, shaved my head, attended 21 sessions at a solarium and kept my end of the bargain completely. (I drew the line at the obligatory $20 donation; It had cost me a fortune in fuel traveling three times a week from Boya to Carlisle.) I had also booked and paid for on my credit card 32 Gold reserve tickets. I felt this more than compensated for the $20 donation. I performed the 1st Sat matinee and was more than happy with the audience response and feedback after the show. (I understand that anything I say with regard to the standard of my own individual performance will sound a little hollow) I also performed the Wed night show and again was more than happy with the audience response( I had a lot of friends attend this show). It was on the following Thurs I was phoned by the executive producer, David Bugden (Senior Manager, Marketing and Sales Development for the M.S. society of W.A.) and informed that the understudies would not be required to perform in the following Sat matinee. When I asked David the obvious Why? he informed me that there had been some missed cues, dropped lines, non appearance of important props and 2 phone calls from disgruntled patrons. I asked him what any of this had to do with my performance and he replied that he understood I was getting the rough end of the stick. I told him this was not good enough and that I did not accept his decision. He replied I had no choice. (He was right). I then asked him to put in writing his reasons for not to allowing me perform the agreed number of shows. He refused. I got upsetÂ…. End of phone call. All sounds a little long winded - sorry!! just want to paint the pictureÂ… The net result is ..Neroli Burton, a woman I have known for over 15 years , who attended my engagement, wedding and 40th birthday. A woman I originally played this role opposite and a woman I have always held in high esteem as a trusted friend, did not, in her capacity as Director of this production, use her considerable clout to right what I believe has been a reprehensible wrong. All I asked of both Neroli and David Bugden was a clear and honest reason for not allowing me to perform a show I had been promised.
I believe this same supposed charity is intending to raise a production of "Les Mis" next year. I can only say to them that I hope the M.S. society treats its sufferers with a little more dignity than it does us amateur actors it uses to raise thousands of dollars in these ambiguous pro-am productions. The End.
P.S. Neroli if you see this please inform me of the current exchange rate for 30 pieces of silver.. Love Joe.
Walter PlingeSat, 23 Oct 2004, 12:05 am
Re: Pro-amlet, Pro-ince of Deutsch Mark
Amen to that Joe. I thoroughly enjoyed your performance, well done. I would also like to comment on the outstanding performance of Sarah Chatfield, who showed considerable talents in singing, dancing, acting and anunciation - it is a shame that both of these fine performers were not given the lead roles that they so richly deserved.
crgwllmsSat, 23 Oct 2004, 01:21 am
Re: It's A Puzzlement
I'm still slightly confused...is it ACTUALLY the MS Society who is fully responsible for putting this production on?
If so, it doesn't seem quite so surprising to me that things are stuffed up...no disrespect, but what does the MS Society know about putting on high-standard theatre productions?
For instance, our Big Hoo-Haa crew are organising a comedy show in the south west soon, where all proceeds will be given to the Cancer Support Association of WA....but you can be damned sure we won't be letting them organize it or make artistic decisions about the comedy - and that's how it should be! They're good at what they do (hence our desire to support) and we're good at what we do...and if anyone got ripped off or treated badly (or didn't laugh) surely we'd be the ones responsible?
I'm reading above that people should be voicing complaints to the MS Society....but who is really running this production, in a theatre-entrepreneur sense? Who is responsible for this mess?
I guess they're hiding, because they're not appearing to come out of this discussion in a good light. Perhaps we're 'Getting To Know' them a little too well?
Cheers
Craig
If so, it doesn't seem quite so surprising to me that things are stuffed up...no disrespect, but what does the MS Society know about putting on high-standard theatre productions?
For instance, our Big Hoo-Haa crew are organising a comedy show in the south west soon, where all proceeds will be given to the Cancer Support Association of WA....but you can be damned sure we won't be letting them organize it or make artistic decisions about the comedy - and that's how it should be! They're good at what they do (hence our desire to support) and we're good at what we do...and if anyone got ripped off or treated badly (or didn't laugh) surely we'd be the ones responsible?
I'm reading above that people should be voicing complaints to the MS Society....but who is really running this production, in a theatre-entrepreneur sense? Who is responsible for this mess?
I guess they're hiding, because they're not appearing to come out of this discussion in a good light. Perhaps we're 'Getting To Know' them a little too well?
Cheers
Craig
crgwllmsSat, 23 Oct 2004, 01:40 am
Re: Sweet Charities
It also occurs to me that, worthy as all of these causes obviously are, they are respected, recognised, and generally afforded assistance by many in the community.
What a shame we can't register 'acting' as an affliction worthy of supporting through a charity. We're always ready to offer our time and skills, and yet not only get little pay or recognition, but decent respect is often hard to come by.
Craig
[%sig%]
Grant MalcolmSat, 23 Oct 2004, 05:52 am
Re: Goodnight sweet prince
Hi Joe
Sorry to hear of your treatment in this production. I wonder if the MS Society have any idea of the negative impact their handling of this is likely to have?
Joe Isaia wrote:
> Why? he informed me that there had been some missed
> cues, dropped lines, non appearance of important props and 2
> phone calls from disgruntled patrons. I asked him what any of
> this had to do with my performance and he replied that he
> understood I was getting the rough end of the stick. I told
> him this was not good enough and that I did not accept his
> decision. He replied I had no choice. (He was right). I then
> asked him to put in writing his reasons for not to allowing
> me perform the agreed number of shows. He refused.
This all sounds pretty unreal.
I can't help feeling that there is something going unsaid in this sacking business. If, as Joe suggests, the few problems with the Wednesday matinee had nothing to do with him, what is the rationale for the sacking? I can't imagine the producer taking this sort of extreme action without some awareness that there would be consequences.
In an earlier post on this site someone, I can only assume the same David Bugden (Senior Manager, Marketing and Sales Development for the M.S. society of W.A.), posted
"The charitable not-for-profit sector is a highly sensitive environment largely dependent on positive public sentiment. Any actions or events generating a negative outcome or negative press, can adversely affect other charities through either direct or indirect association. This is because we all extremely reliant on trust and integrity to maintain public and corporate support."
http://www.theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=19&i=7083&t=7061
I can't see how this sits with the sacking.
Personally, if I were a fellow cast member and this were the only reason given for the sacking, I'd be walking or at least refusing to perform the Saturday matinee without the understudies. If this is the manner in which understudies for leading roles are treated, what is the treatment of the rest of the cast like??
I wonder if sackings of this type are part of the "very successful formula applied by MS South Australia over the last 4 years"? You might be able to get away with this in Adelaide, Adelaide doesn't have the strength of the theatre network that we have here in Perth.
Les Mis? Good luck!
David Bugden might also like to consider that the audience attending the King and I in the last couple days since the sackings has been well and truly outnumbered by the 4,000 people visiting this site. He may also like to try Googling "MS Society Perth"
http://www.google.com/search?q=ms+society+perth
The very first link points to discussion about these issues on this website.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
Sorry to hear of your treatment in this production. I wonder if the MS Society have any idea of the negative impact their handling of this is likely to have?
Joe Isaia wrote:
> Why? he informed me that there had been some missed
> cues, dropped lines, non appearance of important props and 2
> phone calls from disgruntled patrons. I asked him what any of
> this had to do with my performance and he replied that he
> understood I was getting the rough end of the stick. I told
> him this was not good enough and that I did not accept his
> decision. He replied I had no choice. (He was right). I then
> asked him to put in writing his reasons for not to allowing
> me perform the agreed number of shows. He refused.
This all sounds pretty unreal.
I can't help feeling that there is something going unsaid in this sacking business. If, as Joe suggests, the few problems with the Wednesday matinee had nothing to do with him, what is the rationale for the sacking? I can't imagine the producer taking this sort of extreme action without some awareness that there would be consequences.
In an earlier post on this site someone, I can only assume the same David Bugden (Senior Manager, Marketing and Sales Development for the M.S. society of W.A.), posted
"The charitable not-for-profit sector is a highly sensitive environment largely dependent on positive public sentiment. Any actions or events generating a negative outcome or negative press, can adversely affect other charities through either direct or indirect association. This is because we all extremely reliant on trust and integrity to maintain public and corporate support."
http://www.theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=19&i=7083&t=7061
I can't see how this sits with the sacking.
Personally, if I were a fellow cast member and this were the only reason given for the sacking, I'd be walking or at least refusing to perform the Saturday matinee without the understudies. If this is the manner in which understudies for leading roles are treated, what is the treatment of the rest of the cast like??
I wonder if sackings of this type are part of the "very successful formula applied by MS South Australia over the last 4 years"? You might be able to get away with this in Adelaide, Adelaide doesn't have the strength of the theatre network that we have here in Perth.
Les Mis? Good luck!
David Bugden might also like to consider that the audience attending the King and I in the last couple days since the sackings has been well and truly outnumbered by the 4,000 people visiting this site. He may also like to try Googling "MS Society Perth"
http://www.google.com/search?q=ms+society+perth
The very first link points to discussion about these issues on this website.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeSat, 23 Oct 2004, 10:17 am
Re: Goodnight sweet prince
Grant, thanks for your support on this. I must say that after a 45min phone call to Equity only to discover that as a "volunteer" in this shambles I have no redress on the M.S. society breaking the agreement I had with them, I was feeling terribly frustrated and somewhat powerless to gain some kind of voice. This forum and the obvious feelings posted by its members has gone a long way to providing me with some sense of Justice and given me a voice to air my grievances. I have to say that upon reading the posting David Bugden posted on this sight under Greg Ross' banner I did have cause to chuckle. Thanks for pointing it out.
Come we do it again!! I THINK NOT.... ;-)
Come we do it again!! I THINK NOT.... ;-)
Greg RossSat, 23 Oct 2004, 12:15 pm
Re: Siam or Thailand?
I had no intention of commenting on what has occurred in relation to the understudies in the MS Society production of “The King and I,” as I haven’t been involved with the show. Nor do I have any experience in casting, producing and directing shows – apart from several years of creating and overseeing events, such as motor vehicle launches etc, which admittedly often involve aspects of theatre.
However, I have received emails from people involved with the show, requesting that I should comment, in light of my previous defence of Dave Bugden and the MS Society, as having found him and the organisation, to be good and honourable. Therefore somewhat reluctantly, under the afore mentioned pressure, I offer the following, having made some phone calls this morning in search of background information.
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.
The production was welcomed as a great opportunity by many people and consequently, the relevant staff were appointed to bring the show to life as a pro-am production and here, itÂ’s important to point out that in spite of other postings to the contrary, I am assured none of the cast were paid.
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.
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. An understudy is automatically placed in an invidious position, not having that same benefit, no matter how talented.
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).
And here, letÂ’s be honest, the friends and family of cast members are not going to complain. In my last show, on opening night, in a lead role, I missed several lines and was thankfully rescued by the good grace and experience of my fellow cast members. My friends and family were effusive in their praise afterwards, but I knew better, as did everyone else in the production and more than a few old hands in the audience I have no doubt! Indeed my partner came back for the final night and said she was very happy to find another twenty minutes had been added to the show Â… courtesy of yours truly finally nailing the damn thing!
Now while there’s no excuse for not giving your very best performance possible, which, although I did so on the first night, it was sub-standard, it was still an amateur theatre night, with a forgiving, savvy amateur theatre audience. Dave Bugden’s position with “The King and I” was a vastly different scenario. He was confronted with a substantial difference in performance quality and complaints from an unforgiving public, paying good money for tickets.
The main cast had been receiving superb reviews, with no complaints, the following Saturday matinee was virtually a sell-out and he had a duty-of-care to the paying public to provide the best possible show, hence the decision to not use the understudies for the matinee.
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.
Kind regards
Greg Ross
However, I have received emails from people involved with the show, requesting that I should comment, in light of my previous defence of Dave Bugden and the MS Society, as having found him and the organisation, to be good and honourable. Therefore somewhat reluctantly, under the afore mentioned pressure, I offer the following, having made some phone calls this morning in search of background information.
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.
The production was welcomed as a great opportunity by many people and consequently, the relevant staff were appointed to bring the show to life as a pro-am production and here, itÂ’s important to point out that in spite of other postings to the contrary, I am assured none of the cast were paid.
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.
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. An understudy is automatically placed in an invidious position, not having that same benefit, no matter how talented.
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).
And here, letÂ’s be honest, the friends and family of cast members are not going to complain. In my last show, on opening night, in a lead role, I missed several lines and was thankfully rescued by the good grace and experience of my fellow cast members. My friends and family were effusive in their praise afterwards, but I knew better, as did everyone else in the production and more than a few old hands in the audience I have no doubt! Indeed my partner came back for the final night and said she was very happy to find another twenty minutes had been added to the show Â… courtesy of yours truly finally nailing the damn thing!
Now while there’s no excuse for not giving your very best performance possible, which, although I did so on the first night, it was sub-standard, it was still an amateur theatre night, with a forgiving, savvy amateur theatre audience. Dave Bugden’s position with “The King and I” was a vastly different scenario. He was confronted with a substantial difference in performance quality and complaints from an unforgiving public, paying good money for tickets.
The main cast had been receiving superb reviews, with no complaints, the following Saturday matinee was virtually a sell-out and he had a duty-of-care to the paying public to provide the best possible show, hence the decision to not use the understudies for the matinee.
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.
Kind regards
Greg Ross
Walter PlingeSat, 23 Oct 2004, 01:15 pm
Re: King and I reviews?
I had the pleasure of attending the King and I on both opening night and Wednesday the 20th. Let me say straight of that I do not feel the tickets were too much. Knowing the cost of putting on such shows and it also being a charity event I felt that price was not a concern.
The opening night was a joy to watch I felt Sean Yeo as the King did a very commandingly good job and it was easy to see he embraced the part well. Although his relationship with Anna came across as 'yes maybe there is something between us' I would have liked him to show that a little more.
Kathy Jenkins as Anna was fantastic her voice is perfect for that part and her acting ability equally as good. She managed to show the correct amount of English stand offish as well as the caring-ness of a governess, mother.
The supporting cast were very good and I agree that Daniel Mitton delivered and looked his part. I loved Lady Thaing, Alison Fyfe, her voice and her acting was a full support to the King plus Anna and I would even go to say that she was a stand out! Justin Friend, as always a wonderful voice however I felt he was not quite the right 'look' for the part. All the children were very well behaved and very cute, one knows anything can happen with young children involved!
Couple of things that bothered me were the sound, at times it seemed to be too much or too little and the fact that there was dialogue being spoken by cast not mic'd up? If they have mics for the production anyone who speaks in that cast should have one. On opening night the chorus was strong but I found on Wed evening they were very weak, so I am not sure if that was inconsistancy or understudies in chorus. Scenery wise, because there was a such a large cast on stage at times, I thought it was good that it was not overpowering although there was a couple of joins in steps very visable which was a tad shoddy.
The ballet of Uncle Tom's story really grabbed me and I liked the choreography. Wardrobe was good although most of the Europian dresses seemed a little too short? However some stunning costums.
Wednesday evening the King was played by Joe Isaia and while I could see the difference in the way both kings took to the part, Sean being all consumed as the king had me believing in his portrayal of command. While Joe playing the part of the king as an actor taking his role on well, I found them equally as good in their delivery, indeed I would go so far as to say Joe got more laughs in the right places.
More on Wenesday nights performance!.......I wonder why all understudies were on together on the same night? why not split between performances with leads? I would say that is why the show was not the same one as I saw on opening night. However in saying this, it is because I saw both productions, that I can compare. My feeling is that the general public would have seen a good performance on both nights and would not have known any difference as most people do not see a show twice.
The opening night was a joy to watch I felt Sean Yeo as the King did a very commandingly good job and it was easy to see he embraced the part well. Although his relationship with Anna came across as 'yes maybe there is something between us' I would have liked him to show that a little more.
Kathy Jenkins as Anna was fantastic her voice is perfect for that part and her acting ability equally as good. She managed to show the correct amount of English stand offish as well as the caring-ness of a governess, mother.
The supporting cast were very good and I agree that Daniel Mitton delivered and looked his part. I loved Lady Thaing, Alison Fyfe, her voice and her acting was a full support to the King plus Anna and I would even go to say that she was a stand out! Justin Friend, as always a wonderful voice however I felt he was not quite the right 'look' for the part. All the children were very well behaved and very cute, one knows anything can happen with young children involved!
Couple of things that bothered me were the sound, at times it seemed to be too much or too little and the fact that there was dialogue being spoken by cast not mic'd up? If they have mics for the production anyone who speaks in that cast should have one. On opening night the chorus was strong but I found on Wed evening they were very weak, so I am not sure if that was inconsistancy or understudies in chorus. Scenery wise, because there was a such a large cast on stage at times, I thought it was good that it was not overpowering although there was a couple of joins in steps very visable which was a tad shoddy.
The ballet of Uncle Tom's story really grabbed me and I liked the choreography. Wardrobe was good although most of the Europian dresses seemed a little too short? However some stunning costums.
Wednesday evening the King was played by Joe Isaia and while I could see the difference in the way both kings took to the part, Sean being all consumed as the king had me believing in his portrayal of command. While Joe playing the part of the king as an actor taking his role on well, I found them equally as good in their delivery, indeed I would go so far as to say Joe got more laughs in the right places.
More on Wenesday nights performance!.......I wonder why all understudies were on together on the same night? why not split between performances with leads? I would say that is why the show was not the same one as I saw on opening night. However in saying this, it is because I saw both productions, that I can compare. My feeling is that the general public would have seen a good performance on both nights and would not have known any difference as most people do not see a show twice.
Walter PlingeSat, 23 Oct 2004, 01:21 pm
Re: Siam or Thailand?
With all due respect Greg, that's a load of rubbish. You're saying the complaints were about the performances of the understudies, which is a lie. One of the complaints about the MISCASTING of ONE unfortunate actor - the director's fault. And one of the understudies wasn't sacked! Why? Because the lead for the role couldn't handle the demands of all the performances. Another bit of perfect casting!
As I said I have full support for the MS society because of my mum, but three people does not constitute too many complaints. Dave reduced a young performer to tears by essentially blaming her and another understudy for what was actually the fault of the director and MD. The performances had sold well anyway, no one wasn't going to buy tickets because of three, yes 3!!!! complaints.
You want some legitimate complaints by someone who has been a professional on over 30 plays? Well here goes. The audience was paying prices as high as WASO for what was essentially an amateur performance, and believe me the so called 'paid professionals' in the show were CARRIED by these understudies in the performance I saw. The orchestra was sub-par, the stage managers messed up placement of props and lighting made errors. And to top it all off I was told that no one's job was specifically to control the kids - the actors sometimes ended up having to get them in position. Clearly the director and MD weren't up to the task.
They expect the actors, who donate hours and hours of their time and talent, saving the society tens of thousands of dollars, to 'donate' $20 to MS for the privilege of being used. Then they charge them for a program. Then they charge exorbitant prices for photos of the show. There is a fine line between fundraising and exploitation.
If Dave's heart is so heavy he should do the right thing and reinstate the understudies. Let me tell you that tickets will be lost because of annoyed relatives of understudies, and the talent will never support MS again. I can tell you every person I heard talking about the show I went to loved the understudies.
I would again like to give my support to all of the wonderful kids involved and this takes nothing away from them. The fact that beaurocracy and ignorance can be allowed to interfere with talented young volunteers is a disgrace.
As I said I have full support for the MS society because of my mum, but three people does not constitute too many complaints. Dave reduced a young performer to tears by essentially blaming her and another understudy for what was actually the fault of the director and MD. The performances had sold well anyway, no one wasn't going to buy tickets because of three, yes 3!!!! complaints.
You want some legitimate complaints by someone who has been a professional on over 30 plays? Well here goes. The audience was paying prices as high as WASO for what was essentially an amateur performance, and believe me the so called 'paid professionals' in the show were CARRIED by these understudies in the performance I saw. The orchestra was sub-par, the stage managers messed up placement of props and lighting made errors. And to top it all off I was told that no one's job was specifically to control the kids - the actors sometimes ended up having to get them in position. Clearly the director and MD weren't up to the task.
They expect the actors, who donate hours and hours of their time and talent, saving the society tens of thousands of dollars, to 'donate' $20 to MS for the privilege of being used. Then they charge them for a program. Then they charge exorbitant prices for photos of the show. There is a fine line between fundraising and exploitation.
If Dave's heart is so heavy he should do the right thing and reinstate the understudies. Let me tell you that tickets will be lost because of annoyed relatives of understudies, and the talent will never support MS again. I can tell you every person I heard talking about the show I went to loved the understudies.
I would again like to give my support to all of the wonderful kids involved and this takes nothing away from them. The fact that beaurocracy and ignorance can be allowed to interfere with talented young volunteers is a disgrace.
Walter PlingeSat, 23 Oct 2004, 01:28 pm
Re: It's A Puzzlement
I have to agree this is a puzzlement! I to can not help but wonder of the underlying message in all this? I for one will be on the MS web stite to see if any answers can be given.
crgwllmsSat, 23 Oct 2004, 01:38 pm
Re: One or the other; not both
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
>
> 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
Walter PlingeSat, 23 Oct 2004, 01:46 pm
Re: Siam or Thailand?
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" ;-)
"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" ;-)
Walter PlingeSat, 23 Oct 2004, 01:55 pm
Re: King and I reviews?
Dave you are a fuckhead... i dont know you but i hate you, you made my friend cry and for that you will pay.....watch your back!!!!
Walter PlingeSat, 23 Oct 2004, 02:18 pm
Re: King and I reviews?
by the way, she has no idea that i wrote that, and maybe i shouldnt have....i apologise.... but i did see the king and i on wednesday night, and thought it was wonderful. if there was any downfall on the night, it was the chorus, sometimes the orchestra and backstage. the understudies that performed that night did well to try to cover the mistakes that other people made. how dare you degrade her to the point of guilt and humilation that she doesnt deserve. Agagin.... I apologise for my language before.... sometimes my emotions get the best of me
Walter PlingeSat, 23 Oct 2004, 02:59 pm
Re: Pro-amlet, Pro-ince of Deutsch Mark
Dear MS Society,
As the saying goes, "If you lay down with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas".
That is all we have to say.
;-)
As the saying goes, "If you lay down with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas".
That is all we have to say.
;-)
Walter PlingeSat, 23 Oct 2004, 04:24 pm
Dear Simon & Chris
Dear Simon & Chris,
As I say: Lay down with queens and you're bound to end up being bitten on the ass by a bitch! ;-)
As I say: Lay down with queens and you're bound to end up being bitten on the ass by a bitch! ;-)
Dan WallsSun, 24 Oct 2004, 08:57 am
Re: Siam or Thailand?
Greg Ross wrote:
> The main cast had been receiving superb reviews, ... hence the decision >to not use the understudies for the matinee.
So if the show had received a bad review in The West, would the whole cast have been sacked, the production cancelled and people refunded their money? Maybe if the MS Society feels so strongly about this apparently below par performance, why don't they refund the money to the public who attended that night?
Probably because that'd be stupid. Just like it's stupid to sack a group of actors who've wasted their own time and money in attending rehearsals and selling tickets, over 3 complaints, from the hundreds who attended and apparently weren't quite so disgusted.
In any case, as someone correctly pointed out, if they were going to sack anyone, sack the director and sack the MD. If these performers stank so much, they shouldn't have made it on stage.
If the MS Society is going to be such ballbreakers and care so deeply about the level of performance that they present to the public (at near professional prices), then maybe they should just pay for a professional cast and crew.
Dan
> The main cast had been receiving superb reviews, ... hence the decision >to not use the understudies for the matinee.
So if the show had received a bad review in The West, would the whole cast have been sacked, the production cancelled and people refunded their money? Maybe if the MS Society feels so strongly about this apparently below par performance, why don't they refund the money to the public who attended that night?
Probably because that'd be stupid. Just like it's stupid to sack a group of actors who've wasted their own time and money in attending rehearsals and selling tickets, over 3 complaints, from the hundreds who attended and apparently weren't quite so disgusted.
In any case, as someone correctly pointed out, if they were going to sack anyone, sack the director and sack the MD. If these performers stank so much, they shouldn't have made it on stage.
If the MS Society is going to be such ballbreakers and care so deeply about the level of performance that they present to the public (at near professional prices), then maybe they should just pay for a professional cast and crew.
Dan
Walter PlingeMon, 25 Oct 2004, 01:34 pm
Re: a show of support
I feel so disgusted and upset as to the sackings of the Understudies in the King & I.
Along with a friend I attended the Wed night performance and walked away commenting what a great show. Personally I am not a theatre person, but my friend has been in and around theatres for years.
To my untrained eye the show was great, my friend also thoroughly enjoyed the show.
We also came to the conclusion that why would you let all understudies do a show together surely you would give them the opportunity to perform but split with the principles.
People should have the courage of their convictions and give TOTAL support TO ALL THOSE CAST IN PRODUCTIONS.
As to the MS Society's so called administrators you should keep your nose out of theatre and get on with the running of your charity, you really have NO IDEA.
SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!
Feet the ripples of discontent - from ripples come a Tidal Wave - Wait.
Along with a friend I attended the Wed night performance and walked away commenting what a great show. Personally I am not a theatre person, but my friend has been in and around theatres for years.
To my untrained eye the show was great, my friend also thoroughly enjoyed the show.
We also came to the conclusion that why would you let all understudies do a show together surely you would give them the opportunity to perform but split with the principles.
People should have the courage of their convictions and give TOTAL support TO ALL THOSE CAST IN PRODUCTIONS.
As to the MS Society's so called administrators you should keep your nose out of theatre and get on with the running of your charity, you really have NO IDEA.
SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!
Feet the ripples of discontent - from ripples come a Tidal Wave - Wait.
Walter PlingeMon, 25 Oct 2004, 02:12 pm
Re: a show of support
As my husband and I have a friend who has MS, our Company has supported this charity.
I also have an interest in local theatre, so, to hear what has occured in the production of the King & I we are disgusted.
Those eager volunteer Understudies who have done all that was asked of them may have had their friends and relatives coming to the show on Sat aftenoon or could have been lost to theatre completely, what do the powers to be care.
So if the MS Society are so uncaring then our Company will no longer support them.
We will be sending their Christmas Raffle Tickets back to their Chief Executive Officer with an accompaning letter of disgust.
The most important questions have been skirted around - WHY? and how come a man with NO experience in theatre can have that power and the knowledge of poor performances?
I also have an interest in local theatre, so, to hear what has occured in the production of the King & I we are disgusted.
Those eager volunteer Understudies who have done all that was asked of them may have had their friends and relatives coming to the show on Sat aftenoon or could have been lost to theatre completely, what do the powers to be care.
So if the MS Society are so uncaring then our Company will no longer support them.
We will be sending their Christmas Raffle Tickets back to their Chief Executive Officer with an accompaning letter of disgust.
The most important questions have been skirted around - WHY? and how come a man with NO experience in theatre can have that power and the knowledge of poor performances?
cal1ieFri, 29 Oct 2004, 10:19 am
Re: Anna and the King of Pro-am
"But there is actually no such thing as 'pro/am rights' to a show...you either buy the professional rights, or the (much discounted) amateur rights."
Where do you get the idea that the amateur rights are "much discounted"
In my experience they are definitely not.
Where do you get the idea that the amateur rights are "much discounted"
In my experience they are definitely not.
Grant MalcolmFri, 29 Oct 2004, 01:26 pm
Re:right rights
carolyn wrote:
> "But there is actually no such thing as 'pro/am rights' to a
> show...you either buy the professional rights, or the (much
> discounted) amateur rights."
>
> Where do you get the idea that the amateur rights are "much
> discounted"
>
> In my experience they are definitely not.
While I share Craig's view that there are invariably only pro or am rights andnot much in between, I'm with Carolyn on the discounted matter.
I was in the difficult position once where we had commenced rehearsals for a professional production without realising the producer had somehow acquired the amateur rights by mistake. A few hurried and apologetic calls later we had obtained the professional rights. They ended up being significantly cheaper than the amateur rights - about 1/3 cheaper from memory. This is mostly because amateur rights are usually a fixed fee per performance, whereas the professional rights in this case were 10% of door takings. In a small venue like the Blueroom this can be the difference between make and break - or between a mocha and a flat white.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
> "But there is actually no such thing as 'pro/am rights' to a
> show...you either buy the professional rights, or the (much
> discounted) amateur rights."
>
> Where do you get the idea that the amateur rights are "much
> discounted"
>
> In my experience they are definitely not.
While I share Craig's view that there are invariably only pro or am rights andnot much in between, I'm with Carolyn on the discounted matter.
I was in the difficult position once where we had commenced rehearsals for a professional production without realising the producer had somehow acquired the amateur rights by mistake. A few hurried and apologetic calls later we had obtained the professional rights. They ended up being significantly cheaper than the amateur rights - about 1/3 cheaper from memory. This is mostly because amateur rights are usually a fixed fee per performance, whereas the professional rights in this case were 10% of door takings. In a small venue like the Blueroom this can be the difference between make and break - or between a mocha and a flat white.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
cal1ieFri, 29 Oct 2004, 01:43 pm
Re:right rights
Thanks Grant,
I must say though, i never understood the reasoning behind it.
I must say though, i never understood the reasoning behind it.
Walter PlingeFri, 29 Oct 2004, 01:48 pm
Re:right rights
We didn't find much difference between amateur and professional rights cost either, but I believe it can depend on the production
crgwllmsFri, 29 Oct 2004, 01:52 pm
Re: Anna and the King of Pro-am
carolyn wrote:
>
> Where do you get the idea that the amateur rights are "much
> discounted"
>
> In my experience they are definitely not.
That had been my perception, based upon inquiries at websites such as this, that plainly state so:
> Restrictions exist because professional producers and touring groups pay much higher royalties than nonprofessionals, thus guaranteeing them exclusivity and financial "security." (Dramatists Play Service , www.dramatists.com)
However, further inquiry came up with this clause, which modifies the way I should have applied that information:
> How do I know whether our theatre is considered "professional" or "nonprofessional"?
>If you are unsure about this, don't worry. Just fill out the nonprofessional application, and we will review it and make a determination. Our decision is largely based on the amounts of money changing hands. We look at the actors' weekly salaries, your theatre's seating capacity and ticket prices when making the decision. One general rule of thumb is that if you are paying the majority of your actors $150 a week or more, we are likely to consider your production "professional."
>It's not necessarily a question of Equity or non-Equity. Showcase code productions in New York and the 99 Seat Plan productions in Los Angeles may include professional Equity actors, but, as they are being paid next to nothing for their work, the production itself is considered "nonprofessional."
So therefore, Carolyn, your experience may well have been that your amateur productions were likely to make a fair bit of money, and so the rights were more expensive.
Therefore, my statement regarding the MS Society paying cheaper rights is probably incorrect, as they were charging quite high ticket prices.
Thanks for clarifying.
Cheers,
Craig
>
> Where do you get the idea that the amateur rights are "much
> discounted"
>
> In my experience they are definitely not.
That had been my perception, based upon inquiries at websites such as this, that plainly state so:
> Restrictions exist because professional producers and touring groups pay much higher royalties than nonprofessionals, thus guaranteeing them exclusivity and financial "security." (Dramatists Play Service , www.dramatists.com)
However, further inquiry came up with this clause, which modifies the way I should have applied that information:
> How do I know whether our theatre is considered "professional" or "nonprofessional"?
>If you are unsure about this, don't worry. Just fill out the nonprofessional application, and we will review it and make a determination. Our decision is largely based on the amounts of money changing hands. We look at the actors' weekly salaries, your theatre's seating capacity and ticket prices when making the decision. One general rule of thumb is that if you are paying the majority of your actors $150 a week or more, we are likely to consider your production "professional."
>It's not necessarily a question of Equity or non-Equity. Showcase code productions in New York and the 99 Seat Plan productions in Los Angeles may include professional Equity actors, but, as they are being paid next to nothing for their work, the production itself is considered "nonprofessional."
So therefore, Carolyn, your experience may well have been that your amateur productions were likely to make a fair bit of money, and so the rights were more expensive.
Therefore, my statement regarding the MS Society paying cheaper rights is probably incorrect, as they were charging quite high ticket prices.
Thanks for clarifying.
Cheers,
Craig
Walter PlingeThu, 11 Nov 2004, 09:14 pm
A Kingly Ransom...
King and I apparently made a $70, 000 profit.
...Somehow I think the executive might get a bonus...
...Somehow I think the executive might get a bonus...
Walter PlingeMon, 22 Nov 2004, 03:06 pm
Re: Anna and the King of Pro-am
I agree with some of the statments said about the performance being t o long and unessecery repetion of songs. the set was fairly basic and the cast were great. Though as a young student studing Drama Studies it was ineccessary for myself to go see the performance for i need a performance to review, but the cost of tickets was extremely high for an amiture production and for a student in year 11 who is trying to educate her self and experience different entertainment it came to be an expense night out for my mother and myself.
thanks
mwa
leah
thanks
mwa
leah