A Reluctant Devil's Advocate
Sat, 23 Oct 2004, 12:16 pmGreg Ross40 posts in thread
A Reluctant Devil's Advocate
Sat, 23 Oct 2004, 12:16 pmI 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
Re: Standing by my thoughts
Sat, 23 Oct 2004, 08:10 pmHi Greg
When people want to take the high moral ground, they often claim bystander status as evidence of the impartiality of their judgement.
You have a relationship with a key player in this controversy and have been almost the only person responding on the side of the production company. Don't you think you're stretching it a bit trying to take the high moral ground and expecting to be regarded entirely as an utterly unrelated and impartial bystander?
:-)
Greg Ross wrote earlier:
> he [the producer] took the only sane commercial decision possible
Really?
The people alleged to be complaining, whether it was three or thirty, had already paid for their tickets and seen the show.
How does changing the line-up for one of the four subsequent performances have any commercial impact whatsoever?
What possible impact could those people have on sales for the subsequent four performances?
Are the producers labouring under the misimpression that last minute changes like this will some how reassure punters that future productions will be any better?
If the understudies were so bad that they needed to be sacked, haven't the producers already displayed appallingly inept judgement in letting the understudies perform in the first place?
Haven't all the poor mugs that paid to see these apparently dismal understudies then got grounds to claim a refund?
Do the producers realise that there's not a show on anywhere that fails to find its critics?
Did the producers for a moment consider anything other than the views of the alleged complainants?
They apparently thought they could act with impunity and go back on agreements with performers.
Given David's earlier comments that 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"
I'd say they have a minor catastrophe on their hands.
In my experience, when people claim to be making the "only sane commercial decision possible" they're almost inevitably trying to excuse something morally repugnant or reprehensible.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
When people want to take the high moral ground, they often claim bystander status as evidence of the impartiality of their judgement.
You have a relationship with a key player in this controversy and have been almost the only person responding on the side of the production company. Don't you think you're stretching it a bit trying to take the high moral ground and expecting to be regarded entirely as an utterly unrelated and impartial bystander?
:-)
Greg Ross wrote earlier:
> he [the producer] took the only sane commercial decision possible
Really?
The people alleged to be complaining, whether it was three or thirty, had already paid for their tickets and seen the show.
How does changing the line-up for one of the four subsequent performances have any commercial impact whatsoever?
What possible impact could those people have on sales for the subsequent four performances?
Are the producers labouring under the misimpression that last minute changes like this will some how reassure punters that future productions will be any better?
If the understudies were so bad that they needed to be sacked, haven't the producers already displayed appallingly inept judgement in letting the understudies perform in the first place?
Haven't all the poor mugs that paid to see these apparently dismal understudies then got grounds to claim a refund?
Do the producers realise that there's not a show on anywhere that fails to find its critics?
Did the producers for a moment consider anything other than the views of the alleged complainants?
They apparently thought they could act with impunity and go back on agreements with performers.
Given David's earlier comments that 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"
I'd say they have a minor catastrophe on their hands.
In my experience, when people claim to be making the "only sane commercial decision possible" they're almost inevitably trying to excuse something morally repugnant or reprehensible.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···