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
Greg RossSat, 23 Oct 2004, 12:16 pm
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, 03:22 pm
Re: A Reluctant Devil's Advocate
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" ;-)
PollySat, 23 Oct 2004, 04:32 pm
King Debacle - Enough is enough! Where is the accountability her
Greg Ross wrote:
>
> 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.
You may have been assured of this but others directly involved have said otherwise and respectfully, their version appears the more credible one at present. What I don't get is why the cloak & dagger act? If the "The MS Society operates at all times with maximum transparency" (as Mr Bugden suggested) then why not come out and say that no cast member has received any fee?
> 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 donÂ’t think 30 pieces if
> silver were involved, rather the heartfelt desire to look
> after a treasured friend.
I agree with Joe, this is an insult to the all the understudies cast. And you can't have it both ways....on the one hand you claim this is a commercial decsion and Mr Bugden points out that in mounting the show the "aim is to maximise our return on investment", so how on earth does this marry with "unusual promises and non-standard practises being introduced" or "heartfelt desire to look after a treasured friend". That just sounds like pure nonsense. The MS Soceity were in it to make as much money for MS as possible. Nothing wrong with that; just makes it incredible to believe they would jeopardise that goal by not making the best possible casting decisions....
> 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 think the decision one must question is why, having promised the understudies 3 performances in order to get them on board, why not give them sufficient on-stage rehearsal time to be able to bring the show to the same standard as that containing the principles? With the understudies doing one third of the shows and the desire to maximise the return on invesment, surely common sense would tell you they would need substantive rehearsal time?
> 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.
How many of the tickets sold for the Sat matinee do you supposed were sold to people somehow connected to the understudies who specifically want to see them and had to buy their tickets weeks in advance to assure this? What about his duty of care to that paying public??
>
> 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.
This decsion was completely unfair to the understudies. The fact that "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" is simply unacceptable. From day one the Director, Producer and all involved in managing this show knew that the understudies were scheduled to perform these 3 shows. It was THEIR REPSONSIBILITY to make sure that they were equipped to do so.
We could debate forever the wisdom of assigning one third of the season to an alternate cast, but the bottom line is these people were not "understudies" really were they? And maybe that is the problem...Really aren't we talking about a second cast? One that should have been getting at least 30% of the rehearsal time, give they were doing 30% of the shows??
It appears some very very bad decisions were made here and some very talented and completely innocent people have paid dearly. That is so unfair. Forget the "heavy heart" crap. Its time for those who created this appalling situation to stand up and take responsibility. The performers who put in so much time and passion for free, deserve nothing less.
>
> 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.
You may have been assured of this but others directly involved have said otherwise and respectfully, their version appears the more credible one at present. What I don't get is why the cloak & dagger act? If the "The MS Society operates at all times with maximum transparency" (as Mr Bugden suggested) then why not come out and say that no cast member has received any fee?
> 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 donÂ’t think 30 pieces if
> silver were involved, rather the heartfelt desire to look
> after a treasured friend.
I agree with Joe, this is an insult to the all the understudies cast. And you can't have it both ways....on the one hand you claim this is a commercial decsion and Mr Bugden points out that in mounting the show the "aim is to maximise our return on investment", so how on earth does this marry with "unusual promises and non-standard practises being introduced" or "heartfelt desire to look after a treasured friend". That just sounds like pure nonsense. The MS Soceity were in it to make as much money for MS as possible. Nothing wrong with that; just makes it incredible to believe they would jeopardise that goal by not making the best possible casting decisions....
> 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 think the decision one must question is why, having promised the understudies 3 performances in order to get them on board, why not give them sufficient on-stage rehearsal time to be able to bring the show to the same standard as that containing the principles? With the understudies doing one third of the shows and the desire to maximise the return on invesment, surely common sense would tell you they would need substantive rehearsal time?
> 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.
How many of the tickets sold for the Sat matinee do you supposed were sold to people somehow connected to the understudies who specifically want to see them and had to buy their tickets weeks in advance to assure this? What about his duty of care to that paying public??
>
> 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.
This decsion was completely unfair to the understudies. The fact that "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" is simply unacceptable. From day one the Director, Producer and all involved in managing this show knew that the understudies were scheduled to perform these 3 shows. It was THEIR REPSONSIBILITY to make sure that they were equipped to do so.
We could debate forever the wisdom of assigning one third of the season to an alternate cast, but the bottom line is these people were not "understudies" really were they? And maybe that is the problem...Really aren't we talking about a second cast? One that should have been getting at least 30% of the rehearsal time, give they were doing 30% of the shows??
It appears some very very bad decisions were made here and some very talented and completely innocent people have paid dearly. That is so unfair. Forget the "heavy heart" crap. Its time for those who created this appalling situation to stand up and take responsibility. The performers who put in so much time and passion for free, deserve nothing less.
Greg RossSat, 23 Oct 2004, 05:45 pm
Re: Thoughts of a Bystander
IÂ’m sorry if my 30 pieces of silver comment was misconstrued, it was written in reference to JoeÂ’s 30 pieces of silver statement about his friend, as I felt it was rather sad that what appeared to be a long established friendship was under strain and should be saved.
For my money, Craig hit the nail on the head – pro-am is not for theatre. In fact it doesn’t work anywhere else, accept for golf, where it gives fans and sponsors a chance to spend a day on the green with professional players.
For my money, Craig hit the nail on the head – pro-am is not for theatre. In fact it doesn’t work anywhere else, accept for golf, where it gives fans and sponsors a chance to spend a day on the green with professional players.
Grant MalcolmSat, 23 Oct 2004, 08:10 pm
Re: Standing by my thoughts
Hi 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%]
Greg RossSun, 24 Oct 2004, 01:14 am
Re: A Final Comment
Grant, I'm not sure how you came up with the "high moral ground" bit. My experience with commercial reality is obviously very different from yours – it’s all about will the product sell, the price and repeat business. It’s got sweet @!#$ all to do with moral repugnance.
I've already explained why I felt it necessary to make a reply, when it wasnÂ’t really anything to do with me and I didnÂ’t want to get involved. Having done that, by all means dissect and deconstruct my comments as much as you wish, however IÂ’m satisfied that IÂ’ve done the right thing in terms of my own integrity, whether you, or anybody else agrees with my summary.
As a footnote, it’s somewhat bizarre that I’ve become a whipping boy over the affair, as I didn’t run or organise the bloody show, or have anything to do with it, Indeed, I turned down the opportunity of any involvement some months ago - I actually dislike musicals – I think they’re usually camp high drama crap and Jesus wept, am I ever being proven right!
Cheers
Greg Ross
I've already explained why I felt it necessary to make a reply, when it wasnÂ’t really anything to do with me and I didnÂ’t want to get involved. Having done that, by all means dissect and deconstruct my comments as much as you wish, however IÂ’m satisfied that IÂ’ve done the right thing in terms of my own integrity, whether you, or anybody else agrees with my summary.
As a footnote, it’s somewhat bizarre that I’ve become a whipping boy over the affair, as I didn’t run or organise the bloody show, or have anything to do with it, Indeed, I turned down the opportunity of any involvement some months ago - I actually dislike musicals – I think they’re usually camp high drama crap and Jesus wept, am I ever being proven right!
Cheers
Greg Ross
crgwllmsSun, 24 Oct 2004, 02:15 am
Re: et cetera, et cetera, et cetera
Greg Ross wrote:
>
> Grant, I'm not sure how you came up with the "high moral
> ground" bit. My experience with commercial reality is
> obviously very different from yours – it’s all about will the
> product sell, the price and repeat business. ItÂ’s got sweet
> @!#$ all to do with moral repugnance.
...So you were defending the LOW moral ground..?
Further to a previous comment on avoiding the term 'pro-am'; I wasn't trying to be elitist or separatist...I think the 'pro' community can, and should, work with the 'am'...there have been some terrific community productions that have benefitted in this way, and many co-operative projects that exist on those terms...but I'd prefer to think in terms of 'established' working with 'less experienced'. And I'm not an advocate of working for nothing.
There are times when volunteer work is appropriate; I have performed for free when there's been a good reason. But I'm against doing work for no or low wages if it means someone else who may have earned a standard fee for that job has been undercut. All it does is allow the producers to continue to find cheap talent willing to sell itself short, and the industry will never be able to compete even on a minimum wage level.
The amount paid to artists is pitiful, even though they're often employed in some of the most lucrative industries like film and advertising. I really hope not to see another post saying 'please cast me in a TV ad, I'll work for free'. Most producers are prepared to meet the (low) industry minimum, but there are some who will do things on the cheap, and while you might make a small amount and you and the producer seem happy, it's nothing compared to what we'd all be offered if everyone stood solidly and refused to do work for less than the standard rate.
Now, that was a soap-box moment, and I want to make clear I'm not bagging the performers or the fundraising society for doing volunteer work.
But it is a reason why I think it should be clearly represented (and proudly) as 'am'.
Cheers
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> Grant, I'm not sure how you came up with the "high moral
> ground" bit. My experience with commercial reality is
> obviously very different from yours – it’s all about will the
> product sell, the price and repeat business. ItÂ’s got sweet
> @!#$ all to do with moral repugnance.
...So you were defending the LOW moral ground..?
Further to a previous comment on avoiding the term 'pro-am'; I wasn't trying to be elitist or separatist...I think the 'pro' community can, and should, work with the 'am'...there have been some terrific community productions that have benefitted in this way, and many co-operative projects that exist on those terms...but I'd prefer to think in terms of 'established' working with 'less experienced'. And I'm not an advocate of working for nothing.
There are times when volunteer work is appropriate; I have performed for free when there's been a good reason. But I'm against doing work for no or low wages if it means someone else who may have earned a standard fee for that job has been undercut. All it does is allow the producers to continue to find cheap talent willing to sell itself short, and the industry will never be able to compete even on a minimum wage level.
The amount paid to artists is pitiful, even though they're often employed in some of the most lucrative industries like film and advertising. I really hope not to see another post saying 'please cast me in a TV ad, I'll work for free'. Most producers are prepared to meet the (low) industry minimum, but there are some who will do things on the cheap, and while you might make a small amount and you and the producer seem happy, it's nothing compared to what we'd all be offered if everyone stood solidly and refused to do work for less than the standard rate.
Now, that was a soap-box moment, and I want to make clear I'm not bagging the performers or the fundraising society for doing volunteer work.
But it is a reason why I think it should be clearly represented (and proudly) as 'am'.
Cheers
Craig
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeSun, 24 Oct 2004, 02:25 am
Re: A Final Comment
Greg the problem here is not that people are bitching because they are highly strung self centered music theatre extroverts (although that may have something to do with it on other occasions ;-). Of course you have a right to say what you feel. It's just that the facts contradict your sentiments. Its about the exploitation of actors that spreads to all fields. At some point you have to say no, that's enough.
Your point would be valid if the people that were sacked were the ones that were the problem. That wasn't the case.
Surely professionals should be held to a higher standard than amateurs. So lets get the facts straight. The band, MD, director, and main crew were paid as professionals. The complaints were about:
1) The band - all professional and conducted by a professional. Yet anyone who heard them would have to acknowledge that if you were expecting to see an actual professioanl show and the band sounded like that you'd leave.
2a) The choir's diction - all young volunteers doing a great job, who are supposed to be taught and led by who? The MD, a professional. If their diction is unclear or they aren't together it the MD's fault. I've been involved in plenty of school productions and believe me it can be done.
2b) The choir's level - surely either the job of the MD or the sound operators - again, professionals.
3) One of the understudies being miscast - surely the director's responsibility - another 'professional'. And what does this 'professional' do when confronted by this problem? Sit there and allow Dave to lay the blame on the young actor, just doing his/her best and trying to get a great experience without having their confidence destroyed.
I ask you, is this professional behaviour? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But in the world according to Dave, this is all the fault of the understudies! This smacks of something that a political party would do, not a charity.
And if I may list some of the other faults:
- lighting cues incorrect (pro's)
- props in the wrong positions (pro's)
- some lines forgotten (actors - they aren't perfect!) But I've been in plenty of shows with paid actors where a few lines have gone astray. Unlike the MD, stage manager, lighting and sound people IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN FRONT OF THEM DURING THE SHOW!!!
Everyone makes mistakes. But apparently unpaid amateur volunteers are the only ones that suffer for them. Please let me know if any of this doesn't make sense Greg.
Ash
Your point would be valid if the people that were sacked were the ones that were the problem. That wasn't the case.
Surely professionals should be held to a higher standard than amateurs. So lets get the facts straight. The band, MD, director, and main crew were paid as professionals. The complaints were about:
1) The band - all professional and conducted by a professional. Yet anyone who heard them would have to acknowledge that if you were expecting to see an actual professioanl show and the band sounded like that you'd leave.
2a) The choir's diction - all young volunteers doing a great job, who are supposed to be taught and led by who? The MD, a professional. If their diction is unclear or they aren't together it the MD's fault. I've been involved in plenty of school productions and believe me it can be done.
2b) The choir's level - surely either the job of the MD or the sound operators - again, professionals.
3) One of the understudies being miscast - surely the director's responsibility - another 'professional'. And what does this 'professional' do when confronted by this problem? Sit there and allow Dave to lay the blame on the young actor, just doing his/her best and trying to get a great experience without having their confidence destroyed.
I ask you, is this professional behaviour? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But in the world according to Dave, this is all the fault of the understudies! This smacks of something that a political party would do, not a charity.
And if I may list some of the other faults:
- lighting cues incorrect (pro's)
- props in the wrong positions (pro's)
- some lines forgotten (actors - they aren't perfect!) But I've been in plenty of shows with paid actors where a few lines have gone astray. Unlike the MD, stage manager, lighting and sound people IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN FRONT OF THEM DURING THE SHOW!!!
Everyone makes mistakes. But apparently unpaid amateur volunteers are the only ones that suffer for them. Please let me know if any of this doesn't make sense Greg.
Ash
Walter PlingeSun, 24 Oct 2004, 02:52 am
How not to exploit people but help them grow
Hey Craig,
I hear ya man. I guess the problem is that it's as much or even more about who you know in this industry as how good you are. If you want to succeed, you have to do some things for free in order to make the right connections. Everyone wants to be in Hollywood, everyone wants to be a rock star. So if you say, "well that will be $2000 thanks mate", they'll say: well he'll do it for nothing." But accepting this fact, there is still a difference between volunteering for mutual benefit and being exploited.
Let's take the school kids out of it and just talk about school graduates. A perfect case of harmony is BSX theatre. In three plays this year truly professional directors (Tom Gutteridge, Chris Edmund, and the youthful but inspirational Matt Lutton) have worked in co-operation with young professionals or semi-professionals or students in the fields of acting, music and sound design, stage management, costumes, set design, publicity etc. All of the shows have been of a very high standard. Two were gold coin donation. One was under $20. (I know that is entirely different to this situation but that is not the point.) There was a mutual respect and professionalism despite inequalities. Everyone learnt something - some more than others - but all involved learnt something, even the professionals. This is an example of how REAL professionals can interact with less experienced people who are no more dedicated than the actors in the King and I. They were just treated with respect.
I've had a lot of involvement with church choirs. They boy trebles learn extraordinarily hard music and grow exponentially in a very tough environment. How? Because they are paid (less than the adults obviously), and treated like adults. If they mess up they are treated the same way as an adult that messes up. Hard at first, but once they learn that they have a privilege and with that comes responsibility they rise to the occasion and behave (for the most part) like adults. Then they run around like idiots when they aren't performing!
The same applies to the inverse - when professionals are expected to perform to the level of amateurs, they start to give performances of an amateur level. This is endemic in the pro-am music theatre scene as demonstrated by The King and I. They should raise the bar for the actors to follow, not vice versa (note that Dave). THIS is how the arts world should work.
Ash
I hear ya man. I guess the problem is that it's as much or even more about who you know in this industry as how good you are. If you want to succeed, you have to do some things for free in order to make the right connections. Everyone wants to be in Hollywood, everyone wants to be a rock star. So if you say, "well that will be $2000 thanks mate", they'll say: well he'll do it for nothing." But accepting this fact, there is still a difference between volunteering for mutual benefit and being exploited.
Let's take the school kids out of it and just talk about school graduates. A perfect case of harmony is BSX theatre. In three plays this year truly professional directors (Tom Gutteridge, Chris Edmund, and the youthful but inspirational Matt Lutton) have worked in co-operation with young professionals or semi-professionals or students in the fields of acting, music and sound design, stage management, costumes, set design, publicity etc. All of the shows have been of a very high standard. Two were gold coin donation. One was under $20. (I know that is entirely different to this situation but that is not the point.) There was a mutual respect and professionalism despite inequalities. Everyone learnt something - some more than others - but all involved learnt something, even the professionals. This is an example of how REAL professionals can interact with less experienced people who are no more dedicated than the actors in the King and I. They were just treated with respect.
I've had a lot of involvement with church choirs. They boy trebles learn extraordinarily hard music and grow exponentially in a very tough environment. How? Because they are paid (less than the adults obviously), and treated like adults. If they mess up they are treated the same way as an adult that messes up. Hard at first, but once they learn that they have a privilege and with that comes responsibility they rise to the occasion and behave (for the most part) like adults. Then they run around like idiots when they aren't performing!
The same applies to the inverse - when professionals are expected to perform to the level of amateurs, they start to give performances of an amateur level. This is endemic in the pro-am music theatre scene as demonstrated by The King and I. They should raise the bar for the actors to follow, not vice versa (note that Dave). THIS is how the arts world should work.
Ash
Walter PlingeSun, 24 Oct 2004, 08:03 am
Re: A Reluctant Devil's Advocate
Well I must say....cods wallop
The Understudy King has played the role before as the King.
There are many more incidences that you are totally unaware of it would appear.
The MS society has not behaved in an ethical manner at all.
The Wednesday night performances was OK not fabulous but the audience clapped laughed , cried etc in all the right places.
One of the understudies was below par but certainly not all of them.
The show has not been advertised as Pro-am at all these people are amature and the way they were treated was unspeakable
Shame on you MS society
The Understudy King has played the role before as the King.
There are many more incidences that you are totally unaware of it would appear.
The MS society has not behaved in an ethical manner at all.
The Wednesday night performances was OK not fabulous but the audience clapped laughed , cried etc in all the right places.
One of the understudies was below par but certainly not all of them.
The show has not been advertised as Pro-am at all these people are amature and the way they were treated was unspeakable
Shame on you MS society
Walter PlingeSun, 24 Oct 2004, 11:01 am
What King and I pro-am
Ok there is a bit of banter around about PRO-Am
The actors were not paid...and in fact paid an administration fe for the dubious privellige of being abused in the King and I
The Orchestra members were paid...and rumour has it various members in the Orchestra were paid different amounts...another highly ethical thing to do.
I have a friend in the cast and have been told that the real King had to be paid to replace the sacked understudy becasue he could not attend work on Saturday due to the additional show he was forced to do.
Now I am not sure what Pro-am means....Justin Friend and Allison Fyfe are the only two "professionals " in the cast, as I understand it...and they were not paid. Pro - am to me is indicative of leads being paid and chorus not...but I could be wrong.
What ever the situation to sack the understudies who had very considerable rehersal time is outrageous
The actors were not paid...and in fact paid an administration fe for the dubious privellige of being abused in the King and I
The Orchestra members were paid...and rumour has it various members in the Orchestra were paid different amounts...another highly ethical thing to do.
I have a friend in the cast and have been told that the real King had to be paid to replace the sacked understudy becasue he could not attend work on Saturday due to the additional show he was forced to do.
Now I am not sure what Pro-am means....Justin Friend and Allison Fyfe are the only two "professionals " in the cast, as I understand it...and they were not paid. Pro - am to me is indicative of leads being paid and chorus not...but I could be wrong.
What ever the situation to sack the understudies who had very considerable rehersal time is outrageous
Walter PlingeSun, 24 Oct 2004, 11:10 am
Re: Wrong O
It should be pointed out that the Stage mamner had to leave the show due to "health issues" and a replacement SM took over as of the Wednesday night show that has caused so much discussion.
The SM who took over also happened to be the Lighting designer so it really isnt possible for him to put his own lighting call in the wrong place becasue he can put it where ever he likes I guess.
I beliee the only real props used in the show were either put there by actors themselves or volunteer crew
Only leads had microphones so this may account for the sound problem you mention.
The Orchestra can only play the way the MD conducts. There was a player or two in the pit from the WA Symphony so I doubt they made any mistakes with the notes they played
Just a few thoughts of my own
The SM who took over also happened to be the Lighting designer so it really isnt possible for him to put his own lighting call in the wrong place becasue he can put it where ever he likes I guess.
I beliee the only real props used in the show were either put there by actors themselves or volunteer crew
Only leads had microphones so this may account for the sound problem you mention.
The Orchestra can only play the way the MD conducts. There was a player or two in the pit from the WA Symphony so I doubt they made any mistakes with the notes they played
Just a few thoughts of my own
JoeMcSun, 24 Oct 2004, 11:23 am
Re: What King and I pro-am
I tried to post this yesterday - but it's not here?
I'll try again!
As the performers in the ‘K&I’ are considered volunteers, I believe, they have certain rights - as set out in an International or UN Covariance &/or Charter adopted by the State Government. Which I would have assumed the MS Society would have agreed to, when applying & receiving the many grants, handed out by the state government.
So how come? This mob - can obviously fail in Respecting itÂ’s most valuable resource -volunteer/performers! - is this not against Government department policy,?
which must be of some concern to Sheila McHale [Minister]
http://www.volunteering.communitydevelopment.wa.gov.au/aboutus.html
Me thinks the MS Society may have to ‘Fink it out again!’
I'll try again!
As the performers in the ‘K&I’ are considered volunteers, I believe, they have certain rights - as set out in an International or UN Covariance &/or Charter adopted by the State Government. Which I would have assumed the MS Society would have agreed to, when applying & receiving the many grants, handed out by the state government.
So how come? This mob - can obviously fail in Respecting itÂ’s most valuable resource -volunteer/performers! - is this not against Government department policy,?
which must be of some concern to Sheila McHale [Minister]
http://www.volunteering.communitydevelopment.wa.gov.au/aboutus.html
Me thinks the MS Society may have to ‘Fink it out again!’
Walter PlingeSun, 24 Oct 2004, 01:34 pm
Re: A Final Comment
Greg, probably a good idea to make this your final comment as the hole you are digging youself into will soon be to deep to climb out of, a common problem faced by those of us who try to defend the reprehensible.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Walter PlingeSun, 24 Oct 2004, 02:22 pm
Re: Thoughts of a Bystander
With all that has gone down, been said, those who have been back stabbed, and those who have had to pick up the pieces...................ah isnt theatre grand.
Sad part is we wouldnt give it up would we?
I think if the ITA is smart, in a few years they will gather all the 'talk' of their website and...........take it to Lloyd-Webber! It ceratainly would make a great musical, and the average Jo audience member could really see what its like to finally get to the stage.
Hey if they can make a musical about Jerry Springer anything is possible.
:)
Sad part is we wouldnt give it up would we?
I think if the ITA is smart, in a few years they will gather all the 'talk' of their website and...........take it to Lloyd-Webber! It ceratainly would make a great musical, and the average Jo audience member could really see what its like to finally get to the stage.
Hey if they can make a musical about Jerry Springer anything is possible.
:)
Grant MalcolmSun, 24 Oct 2004, 02:47 pm
Re: No final asnwer
Hi Greg
This may be your final comment, but I suspect that it won't be the last we'll hear on this matter.
Greg Ross wrote:
> Grant, I'm not sure how you came up with the "high moral
> ground" bit.
I was wondering why you might want to characterise your contributions to the discussion as those of an impartial "bystander".
> My experience with commercial reality is
> obviously very different from yours – it’s all about will the
> product sell, the price and repeat business. ItÂ’s got sweet
> @!#$ all to do with moral repugnance.
Uhuh. But it's never enough to just consider the thos factors, is it? Or will you let me know if you start dealing in drugs, child porn or weapons of mass destruction.
;-)
A narrow focus on short term commercial gains tends to let the things that really matter slide, like "positive public sentiment", "trust and integrity" and "public and corporate support" (ref http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=19&i=7165&t=7160).
While your earlier post suggested that sacking the understudies was "the only sane commercial decision possible", I raised some issues that draw into question the narrow focus on some ill-defined commercial gain that has led to a decision with much longer term, negative implications.
> I've already explained why I felt it necessary to make a
> reply, when it wasnÂ’t really anything to do with me and I
> didnÂ’t want to get involved. Having done that, by all means
> dissect and deconstruct my comments as much as you wish,
> however IÂ’m satisfied that IÂ’ve done the right thing in terms
> of my own integrity, whether you, or anybody else agrees with
> my summary.
I understood these weren't your own comments so much as background information you'd gathered yesterday via a couple of phone calls?
Apart from questioning your status as an impartial bystander my questions and any inherent criticisms were directed to the producers, not at you.
> As a footnote, itÂ’s somewhat bizarre that IÂ’ve become a
> whipping boy over the affair
It's a time honoured tradition called shooting the messenger.
:-)
Sadly, no one else seems prepared to speak on behalf of or for the producers in answer to the questions raised here.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
This may be your final comment, but I suspect that it won't be the last we'll hear on this matter.
Greg Ross wrote:
> Grant, I'm not sure how you came up with the "high moral
> ground" bit.
I was wondering why you might want to characterise your contributions to the discussion as those of an impartial "bystander".
> My experience with commercial reality is
> obviously very different from yours – it’s all about will the
> product sell, the price and repeat business. ItÂ’s got sweet
> @!#$ all to do with moral repugnance.
Uhuh. But it's never enough to just consider the thos factors, is it? Or will you let me know if you start dealing in drugs, child porn or weapons of mass destruction.
;-)
A narrow focus on short term commercial gains tends to let the things that really matter slide, like "positive public sentiment", "trust and integrity" and "public and corporate support" (ref http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=19&i=7165&t=7160).
While your earlier post suggested that sacking the understudies was "the only sane commercial decision possible", I raised some issues that draw into question the narrow focus on some ill-defined commercial gain that has led to a decision with much longer term, negative implications.
> I've already explained why I felt it necessary to make a
> reply, when it wasnÂ’t really anything to do with me and I
> didnÂ’t want to get involved. Having done that, by all means
> dissect and deconstruct my comments as much as you wish,
> however IÂ’m satisfied that IÂ’ve done the right thing in terms
> of my own integrity, whether you, or anybody else agrees with
> my summary.
I understood these weren't your own comments so much as background information you'd gathered yesterday via a couple of phone calls?
Apart from questioning your status as an impartial bystander my questions and any inherent criticisms were directed to the producers, not at you.
> As a footnote, itÂ’s somewhat bizarre that IÂ’ve become a
> whipping boy over the affair
It's a time honoured tradition called shooting the messenger.
:-)
Sadly, no one else seems prepared to speak on behalf of or for the producers in answer to the questions raised here.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
crgwllmsSun, 24 Oct 2004, 03:05 pm
Re: How not to exploit people but help them grow
Ashimo wrote:
>
> Hey Craig,
>
> I hear ya man. I guess the problem is that it's as much or
> even more about who you know in this industry as how good you
> are. If you want to succeed, you have to do some things for
> free in order to make the right connections. Everyone wants
> to be in Hollywood, everyone wants to be a rock star. So if
> you say, "well that will be $2000 thanks mate", they'll say:
> well he'll do it for nothing." But accepting this fact, there
> is still a difference between volunteering for mutual benefit
> and being exploited.
>
G'day Ash
Yes, that's the dilemma...as soon as a few agree to undervalue themselves, for whatever beneficial reason, the industry drops to that level and it's very hard for anyone else to assert themselves even to get a standard minimum wage. If we could achieve industry unity and never settle for less than we deserve, there'd be no one who they could point to and say 'he'll do it for nothing'....the arts industry would grow in respect and value because we'd respect and value ourselves.
Yes I know, that's only an utopian dream...
Good example to use, BSX do some excellent community work.
Cheers,
Craig
>
> Hey Craig,
>
> I hear ya man. I guess the problem is that it's as much or
> even more about who you know in this industry as how good you
> are. If you want to succeed, you have to do some things for
> free in order to make the right connections. Everyone wants
> to be in Hollywood, everyone wants to be a rock star. So if
> you say, "well that will be $2000 thanks mate", they'll say:
> well he'll do it for nothing." But accepting this fact, there
> is still a difference between volunteering for mutual benefit
> and being exploited.
>
G'day Ash
Yes, that's the dilemma...as soon as a few agree to undervalue themselves, for whatever beneficial reason, the industry drops to that level and it's very hard for anyone else to assert themselves even to get a standard minimum wage. If we could achieve industry unity and never settle for less than we deserve, there'd be no one who they could point to and say 'he'll do it for nothing'....the arts industry would grow in respect and value because we'd respect and value ourselves.
Yes I know, that's only an utopian dream...
Good example to use, BSX do some excellent community work.
Cheers,
Craig
crgwllmsSun, 24 Oct 2004, 03:52 pm
Re: Quid pro-am quo
Arnold wrote:
>
> Ok there is a bit of banter around about PRO-Am
> Now I am not sure what Pro-am means....Justin Friend and
> Allison Fyfe are the only two "professionals " in the cast,
> as I understand it...and they were not paid. Pro - am to me
> is indicative of leads being paid and chorus not...but I
> could be wrong.
I don't know what it means either, and I suspect neither does anyone else, which is the point of one of my earlier posts.
In the case of golf tournaments, it's when top amateurs challenge professionals. So in a loose sense, it's any situation involving pro's and am's together. The confusion and ambiguity of the term arises because it could refer to nobody being paid, everybody being paid, one person being paid...
It's not a contractual type of term so it's very open-ended. It's also not any indication of quality, as neither 'pro' nor 'am' necessarily mean good, bad, or otherwise.
I don't believe the MS Society ever advertised the show as 'Pro-Am'. But neither do they appear to have strongly advertised it as 'amateur' which, if it is true they are paying amateur rights to the play, may have been an obligation?
Ron Banks in his review for the West Australian definitely used 'pro-am', which in the public's eye is as good as advertising...not the MS Society's fault, but erroneous nonetheless.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> Ok there is a bit of banter around about PRO-Am
> Now I am not sure what Pro-am means....Justin Friend and
> Allison Fyfe are the only two "professionals " in the cast,
> as I understand it...and they were not paid. Pro - am to me
> is indicative of leads being paid and chorus not...but I
> could be wrong.
I don't know what it means either, and I suspect neither does anyone else, which is the point of one of my earlier posts.
In the case of golf tournaments, it's when top amateurs challenge professionals. So in a loose sense, it's any situation involving pro's and am's together. The confusion and ambiguity of the term arises because it could refer to nobody being paid, everybody being paid, one person being paid...
It's not a contractual type of term so it's very open-ended. It's also not any indication of quality, as neither 'pro' nor 'am' necessarily mean good, bad, or otherwise.
I don't believe the MS Society ever advertised the show as 'Pro-Am'. But neither do they appear to have strongly advertised it as 'amateur' which, if it is true they are paying amateur rights to the play, may have been an obligation?
Ron Banks in his review for the West Australian definitely used 'pro-am', which in the public's eye is as good as advertising...not the MS Society's fault, but erroneous nonetheless.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeSun, 24 Oct 2004, 04:08 pm
Re: Wrong O
Hey,
Well I hope that the stage manager gets better soon so that it can all be up to scratch. These things happen I suppose. Maybe the lights had been wrong on the other nights...
Still that was an aside to the real problem of MD and director...
Ash
Well I hope that the stage manager gets better soon so that it can all be up to scratch. These things happen I suppose. Maybe the lights had been wrong on the other nights...
Still that was an aside to the real problem of MD and director...
Ash
PollySun, 24 Oct 2004, 05:44 pm
Re: What King and I pro-am
Arnold wrote:
>
> Now I am not sure what Pro-am means....Justin Friend and
> Allison Fyfe are the only two "professionals " in the cast,
> as I understand it...and they were not paid. Pro - am to me
> is indicative of leads being paid and chorus not...but I
> could be wrong.
>
Interesting, considering that Justin, in front of numerous witnesses just over a week ago made specific reference to the "fee" he was getting for being in the show...........can't comment on Allison
>
> Now I am not sure what Pro-am means....Justin Friend and
> Allison Fyfe are the only two "professionals " in the cast,
> as I understand it...and they were not paid. Pro - am to me
> is indicative of leads being paid and chorus not...but I
> could be wrong.
>
Interesting, considering that Justin, in front of numerous witnesses just over a week ago made specific reference to the "fee" he was getting for being in the show...........can't comment on Allison
Walter PlingeSun, 24 Oct 2004, 09:34 pm
Re: What King and I pro-am
You would therefore do well to find out what "the fee" is/was.
It would appear to be open to speculation at the moment.
It would appear to be open to speculation at the moment.
Walter PlingeMon, 25 Oct 2004, 09:21 am
Re: What King and I pro-am
I believe that FEE was more like an ad they put in the programme for his CD...I might be wrong
jassepMon, 25 Oct 2004, 12:03 pm
This is Potentially a HUGE Business Mistake by WA-MS, Greg...
Hi Greg,
I was not really intending to weigh-in on this debate, as my repuganance has been more than adequately voiced by others on this board...HOWEVER...
Greg - impartial, partial, slightly-off-centre - whatever you are - there is at least one dimension to all of this that neither you nor the MS Society seem to have considered -- the potential backlash from local business.
Now, this *may* seem far-fetched to you, but I can assure you it's not. Why? Because I know Joe Isaia very, very well. And I am aware of how far his personal network of influence stretches in the WA business community.
Good Italian boy, big family, many with established (and quite large) businesses ... which talk to each other... you do the math...
My point is not 'blackmail' or 'extortion' - rather, I feel that contributions from a signifiant percentage of businesses (more than could reasonably be expected) *could* dry up for the WA MS Society as a result of their dishonourable conduct in this matter - but MORE, from their insolent and pig-headed insistence on NOT MANAGING IT BETTER!
As a marketer you, surely, must appreciate the exponential nature of networks? And the consequences of badly handled public relations?
I simply think it behooves the MS Society to have a meeting, explain plainly and honestly their situation to the parties involved - before this situation get even further out of hand. "Closure" is such an over-hackneyed pharase I'd rather not use it... but I think the concept of it is appropriate here.
Anyway, just my 0.022c worth...
Regards,
Jason
P.S. This is the potential network influence of just ONE member of the (large) cast... I cannot speak for any of the others. As Grant pointed out, Google searches for the WA MS Society will lead to these messages first. And I *wouldn't* be suprised if there was a "DON'T Support the WA MS Society - Ask Me Why!" tee-shirt/bumper-sticker campaign rolled-out by the cast! I've even heard that one influential local independent publisher (who has the ear of 40,000 + readers) is looking to feature this in his publications. Fair warning... grassroots action is not JUST for political injustices in Parliament!
I was not really intending to weigh-in on this debate, as my repuganance has been more than adequately voiced by others on this board...HOWEVER...
Greg - impartial, partial, slightly-off-centre - whatever you are - there is at least one dimension to all of this that neither you nor the MS Society seem to have considered -- the potential backlash from local business.
Now, this *may* seem far-fetched to you, but I can assure you it's not. Why? Because I know Joe Isaia very, very well. And I am aware of how far his personal network of influence stretches in the WA business community.
Good Italian boy, big family, many with established (and quite large) businesses ... which talk to each other... you do the math...
My point is not 'blackmail' or 'extortion' - rather, I feel that contributions from a signifiant percentage of businesses (more than could reasonably be expected) *could* dry up for the WA MS Society as a result of their dishonourable conduct in this matter - but MORE, from their insolent and pig-headed insistence on NOT MANAGING IT BETTER!
As a marketer you, surely, must appreciate the exponential nature of networks? And the consequences of badly handled public relations?
I simply think it behooves the MS Society to have a meeting, explain plainly and honestly their situation to the parties involved - before this situation get even further out of hand. "Closure" is such an over-hackneyed pharase I'd rather not use it... but I think the concept of it is appropriate here.
Anyway, just my 0.022c worth...
Regards,
Jason
P.S. This is the potential network influence of just ONE member of the (large) cast... I cannot speak for any of the others. As Grant pointed out, Google searches for the WA MS Society will lead to these messages first. And I *wouldn't* be suprised if there was a "DON'T Support the WA MS Society - Ask Me Why!" tee-shirt/bumper-sticker campaign rolled-out by the cast! I've even heard that one influential local independent publisher (who has the ear of 40,000 + readers) is looking to feature this in his publications. Fair warning... grassroots action is not JUST for political injustices in Parliament!
Walter PlingeMon, 25 Oct 2004, 12:35 pm
Re: This is Potentially a HUGE Business Mistake by WA-MS, Greg..
Jason Seperic wrote:
> ...I've even heard that one influential local
> independent publisher (who has the ear of 40,000 + readers)
> is looking to feature this in his publications.
Yup, 18 column inches on Page 2 of TodayÂ’s WestÂ…
> ...I've even heard that one influential local
> independent publisher (who has the ear of 40,000 + readers)
> is looking to feature this in his publications.
Yup, 18 column inches on Page 2 of TodayÂ’s WestÂ…
Walter PlingeMon, 25 Oct 2004, 01:38 pm
apology... anything?
has the MS Society apologised for its conduct? has there been any word at all on this?
Walter PlingeMon, 25 Oct 2004, 01:58 pm
Re: What King and I pro-am
Hi Polly and others
I havent read much of the 'banter' on the site, but thought that I would comment on this since its ME personally that you are talking about.
I would love to know where you heard I was being paid. I like alot of others 'Joke' about a fee, like the incorrect publicity I heard about that I gave up 2 lead roles on the West-end to fly back to take the lead in the K&I???? Yes thats something I'd do.......paid international work for a freebie!
Yes I was performing in the UK, but came back early because of health reasons, and the media was incorrect in what it wrote. End of story!
But like everyone else, I was unpaid. The MS society placed an ad in their programme for me, as long as there was space for it. (Worth about $100 is suppose for the ad?)
As a professional performer, yes often I would have a fee that ranges and varies for different companies, but those in Perth that know me as a performer know that at least 1/2 of my performing is done for FREE as like most of you on this site I love what I do and money is not the reason I perform.
I hope that this clarifies about me getting paid.
Justin Freind
I havent read much of the 'banter' on the site, but thought that I would comment on this since its ME personally that you are talking about.
I would love to know where you heard I was being paid. I like alot of others 'Joke' about a fee, like the incorrect publicity I heard about that I gave up 2 lead roles on the West-end to fly back to take the lead in the K&I???? Yes thats something I'd do.......paid international work for a freebie!
Yes I was performing in the UK, but came back early because of health reasons, and the media was incorrect in what it wrote. End of story!
But like everyone else, I was unpaid. The MS society placed an ad in their programme for me, as long as there was space for it. (Worth about $100 is suppose for the ad?)
As a professional performer, yes often I would have a fee that ranges and varies for different companies, but those in Perth that know me as a performer know that at least 1/2 of my performing is done for FREE as like most of you on this site I love what I do and money is not the reason I perform.
I hope that this clarifies about me getting paid.
Justin Freind
Walter PlingeMon, 25 Oct 2004, 05:27 pm
Re: What King and I pro-am
Justin Friend Wrote:
I like a lot of others 'Joke' about a fee
Fact: Definition of Joke is 'a story told to provoke laughter' An interesting sense of humour you have Mr. Friend. Perhaps 'Lie' is more appropriate than Joke in this senario.
Fact: As a 'professional' London based music theatre performer, and after having had the privelege of hearing Trent Laurenson sing I can assure you that one day you will be understudying this incredibly talented young man.
I like a lot of others 'Joke' about a fee
Fact: Definition of Joke is 'a story told to provoke laughter' An interesting sense of humour you have Mr. Friend. Perhaps 'Lie' is more appropriate than Joke in this senario.
Fact: As a 'professional' London based music theatre performer, and after having had the privelege of hearing Trent Laurenson sing I can assure you that one day you will be understudying this incredibly talented young man.
Walter PlingeMon, 25 Oct 2004, 07:05 pm
Re: What King and I pro-am
Anon wrote:
>
> Justin Friend Wrote:
>
> I like a lot of others 'Joke' about a fee
>
>
> Fact: Definition of Joke is 'a story told to provoke
> laughter' An interesting sense of humour you have Mr. Friend.
> Perhaps 'Lie' is more appropriate than Joke in this senario.
Here here. You are a liar Mr Freind. Full stop. As if you'd do anything for free, despite being a rather mediocre performer.
And what do you say to the rumour that you got paid $20,000 for 'musically directing' for Onstage Productions?
>
> Justin Friend Wrote:
>
> I like a lot of others 'Joke' about a fee
>
>
> Fact: Definition of Joke is 'a story told to provoke
> laughter' An interesting sense of humour you have Mr. Friend.
> Perhaps 'Lie' is more appropriate than Joke in this senario.
Here here. You are a liar Mr Freind. Full stop. As if you'd do anything for free, despite being a rather mediocre performer.
And what do you say to the rumour that you got paid $20,000 for 'musically directing' for Onstage Productions?
Walter PlingeMon, 25 Oct 2004, 07:41 pm
Re: What King and I pro-am
Thank you for the good laugh
If I received fee's of $20,000 for MD work why l would I be a performer in Perth working in amature theatre.
Could you also please let me know what "Professional" London based shows that I am supposed to have done. They also forgot to send my cheque to me. Not very easy when I was in London for 10 days!
Thanks :)
If I received fee's of $20,000 for MD work why l would I be a performer in Perth working in amature theatre.
Could you also please let me know what "Professional" London based shows that I am supposed to have done. They also forgot to send my cheque to me. Not very easy when I was in London for 10 days!
Thanks :)
Grant MalcolmMon, 25 Oct 2004, 07:52 pm
Re: a regal response
Hi Justin
Justin Freind wrote:
> Thank you for the good laugh
A very civil, almost regal, response in light of the last couple of nasty comments. Bravo!
I'm not going to grace either of the anonymous cowards with any response except perhaps a word of warning that you can and will be traced if necessary. Unless you want to cop a lawsuit, keep the discussion civil.
I hope everyone else will follow Justin's lead and not feed the trolls.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
Justin Freind wrote:
> Thank you for the good laugh
A very civil, almost regal, response in light of the last couple of nasty comments. Bravo!
I'm not going to grace either of the anonymous cowards with any response except perhaps a word of warning that you can and will be traced if necessary. Unless you want to cop a lawsuit, keep the discussion civil.
I hope everyone else will follow Justin's lead and not feed the trolls.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeMon, 25 Oct 2004, 10:29 pm
The King and I
As one of the understudies involved, I have been keeping abreast, with interest, of what those within the theatre community and those who support the MS Society have been mentioning in defence of each.
First let me start by saying “Thank you” for all the support, from those in the cast to those who have mentioned our performances and commented on how much they enjoyed them. Although the situation that occurred was unfortunate, I feel that the friends I made in the interim were well worth the time that I personally invested.
Although I have put a positive perspective on this situation the one question that I never received an answer for was “Why?” I believe that honesty at this juncture would be appreciated. The fact that the MS Society has yet to approach us formally to apologise and thank us for the effort and sacrifices that we made over the course of three and a half months is disappointing.
I am not looking for redemption; however I do feel that a thank you and some form or sign of appreciation by the MS Society would have been a more appropriate gesture.
Thank you once again to those who have supported of efforts and enjoyed our peformances. It was truely an amazing expericence entertaining you.
First let me start by saying “Thank you” for all the support, from those in the cast to those who have mentioned our performances and commented on how much they enjoyed them. Although the situation that occurred was unfortunate, I feel that the friends I made in the interim were well worth the time that I personally invested.
Although I have put a positive perspective on this situation the one question that I never received an answer for was “Why?” I believe that honesty at this juncture would be appreciated. The fact that the MS Society has yet to approach us formally to apologise and thank us for the effort and sacrifices that we made over the course of three and a half months is disappointing.
I am not looking for redemption; however I do feel that a thank you and some form or sign of appreciation by the MS Society would have been a more appropriate gesture.
Thank you once again to those who have supported of efforts and enjoyed our peformances. It was truely an amazing expericence entertaining you.
Grant MalcolmMon, 25 Oct 2004, 11:22 pm
Re: Trash-talking tabloids
Paul Treasure wrote:
> Yup, 18 column inches on Page 2 of TodayÂ’s WestÂ…
Apart from a single column inch in the IT section six years ago, it's the only reporting we've ever had in the west.
:-)
The coverage in the west was about as sensationalist as you might expect from what has become largely a trash-talking tabloid. Interesting to note that the standard of reporting in Inside Cover wasn't that much better than the average post on this website and certainly below much of what we see posted here on a regular basis.
In particular the final quote entirely and, I can only conclude, deliberately mischaracterised some discussion here. While the west chose to publish the worst over-reaction, their failure to acknowledge the apology and retraction provided on this website is more an inditement of the west's lack of integrity than it was any negative reflection on this community.
Finally 18 column inches on page two of the west saw the number of new visitors to the site jump by about only 10% or 200 visitors. Visitors were reading 50% more pages than usual, an average of six pages per visitor.
Make of it what you will.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
> Yup, 18 column inches on Page 2 of TodayÂ’s WestÂ…
Apart from a single column inch in the IT section six years ago, it's the only reporting we've ever had in the west.
:-)
The coverage in the west was about as sensationalist as you might expect from what has become largely a trash-talking tabloid. Interesting to note that the standard of reporting in Inside Cover wasn't that much better than the average post on this website and certainly below much of what we see posted here on a regular basis.
In particular the final quote entirely and, I can only conclude, deliberately mischaracterised some discussion here. While the west chose to publish the worst over-reaction, their failure to acknowledge the apology and retraction provided on this website is more an inditement of the west's lack of integrity than it was any negative reflection on this community.
Finally 18 column inches on page two of the west saw the number of new visitors to the site jump by about only 10% or 200 visitors. Visitors were reading 50% more pages than usual, an average of six pages per visitor.
Make of it what you will.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
PollyMon, 25 Oct 2004, 11:44 pm
Re: Trash-talking tabloids
Posted this elsewhere, but eqully applicable here and once again my hat is off to you..
Grant
Thankyou so much for your thoughtful and eloquent response. I was apalled at Greg's 'Consequences' posting and the idea that the heartfelt support of many on this site would be construed by any sensible person as "doing possibly irreparable long term harm". Or for that matter that anyone reading these posts would see the discussion as "back biting and viciousness".
I applaud all those who have come out in support of what has happened. As you have all probably gathered, I was not in the cast of the K & I but am a friend of one of the 'sacked' understudies and have been a part of the community theatre community on and off for 10 years.
When I heard what happened, I felt sick. I think anyone who has been in the Perth scene (or no doubt any community like this) would have instantly empathised with the actors involved. This could have been any one of us.
It is extremely disappointing to me that not only has the production company had no official response (despite the West's erroneous report that Mr Bugden's post that was made quite some time before the sacking incident was a 'response'), but that Greg Ross (who like or not, has appointed himself the unofficial spokesperson of the MS Society) would resort to comments to the effect that we're all just drama queens and when that didn't shut us up accused us of being responsible for potential sponsors of the arts pulling out. Really, how ridiculous and shameful! If the MS Society hasn't figured out by now that name calling and threats aren't going to cut it, then hopefully the West article (albeit a fairly disappointing and factually inaccurate account in my view), and Charles' recent post will. Here's to you Charles for such a gracious and humble response to the way you have been treated.
http://www.theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=19&i=7200&t=7160
Wow! This was going to be a short thank you. Sorry folks!
Grant
Thankyou so much for your thoughtful and eloquent response. I was apalled at Greg's 'Consequences' posting and the idea that the heartfelt support of many on this site would be construed by any sensible person as "doing possibly irreparable long term harm". Or for that matter that anyone reading these posts would see the discussion as "back biting and viciousness".
I applaud all those who have come out in support of what has happened. As you have all probably gathered, I was not in the cast of the K & I but am a friend of one of the 'sacked' understudies and have been a part of the community theatre community on and off for 10 years.
When I heard what happened, I felt sick. I think anyone who has been in the Perth scene (or no doubt any community like this) would have instantly empathised with the actors involved. This could have been any one of us.
It is extremely disappointing to me that not only has the production company had no official response (despite the West's erroneous report that Mr Bugden's post that was made quite some time before the sacking incident was a 'response'), but that Greg Ross (who like or not, has appointed himself the unofficial spokesperson of the MS Society) would resort to comments to the effect that we're all just drama queens and when that didn't shut us up accused us of being responsible for potential sponsors of the arts pulling out. Really, how ridiculous and shameful! If the MS Society hasn't figured out by now that name calling and threats aren't going to cut it, then hopefully the West article (albeit a fairly disappointing and factually inaccurate account in my view), and Charles' recent post will. Here's to you Charles for such a gracious and humble response to the way you have been treated.
http://www.theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=19&i=7200&t=7160
Wow! This was going to be a short thank you. Sorry folks!
crgwllmsTue, 26 Oct 2004, 02:55 am
Re: Inside Cover-version
Grant Malcolm wrote:
>
> The coverage in the west was about as sensationalist as you
> might expect from what has become largely a trash-talking
> tabloid. Interesting to note that the standard of reporting
> in Inside Cover wasn't that much better than the average post
> on this website and certainly below much of what we see
> posted here on a regular basis.
Well, a good 47% of the article WAS written by people here..!!
Cheers,
Craig
(Incidentally, I've been reasonably successful in infiltrating The West on a regular basis, as well...I've been published about 6 times in the past two weeks in a trivia column on the only page worth reading - the page with the Cryptic Crossword!)
[%sig%]
>
> The coverage in the west was about as sensationalist as you
> might expect from what has become largely a trash-talking
> tabloid. Interesting to note that the standard of reporting
> in Inside Cover wasn't that much better than the average post
> on this website and certainly below much of what we see
> posted here on a regular basis.
Well, a good 47% of the article WAS written by people here..!!
Cheers,
Craig
(Incidentally, I've been reasonably successful in infiltrating The West on a regular basis, as well...I've been published about 6 times in the past two weeks in a trivia column on the only page worth reading - the page with the Cryptic Crossword!)
[%sig%]
Grant MalcolmTue, 26 Oct 2004, 07:25 am
Re: Insiders undercover
Hi Craig
crgwllms wrote:
> (Incidentally, I've been reasonably successful in
> infiltrating The West on a regular basis, as well...I've been
> published about 6 times in the past two weeks in a trivia
> column on the only page worth reading - the page with the
> Cryptic Crossword!)
I wondered if that was you! Stylistic similarity but they kept spelling your name wrong.
;-)
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
crgwllms wrote:
> (Incidentally, I've been reasonably successful in
> infiltrating The West on a regular basis, as well...I've been
> published about 6 times in the past two weeks in a trivia
> column on the only page worth reading - the page with the
> Cryptic Crossword!)
I wondered if that was you! Stylistic similarity but they kept spelling your name wrong.
;-)
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeTue, 26 Oct 2004, 10:13 am
Re: Trash-talking tabloids
Grant Malcolm wrote:
>
> Paul Treasure wrote:
> > Yup, 18 column inches on Page 2 of TodayÂ’s WestÂ…
>
> Apart from a single column inch in the IT section six years
> ago, it's the only reporting we've ever had in the west.
>
> :-)
I must admit that I was furious with Ron BanksÂ’ article on David Williamson a couple of weekends ago.
He was talking about how WA has been deprived of the most of the later Williamson plays, in particular he mentioned how we had not had the opportunity to see “Corporate Vibes”.
Now, seeing as I was IN the WA premiere of this play only six months ago, I was ready to raise the rooftops.
I know that, as a community, we are below the notice of Ron Banks, but to deny our even existence???
It wouldn’t have been so bad if he’d said something like “…only had an amateur production” rather than state that it hadn’t been done.
I could have lived with the “only”.
I think the Worst Australian Ron WÂ… sorry Banks is about ten years behind.
Our community has, in a backward way, actually benefitted from the decline of the WA Theatre Company and Hole in the Wall.
The average standard of shows is a LOT better now than when I started in amateur theatre fifteen years ago.
Mind you, we are not the only theatre community to have problems with their print media organ.
The NY Times have just drastically reduced their coverage of live theater including abandoning their Free Sunday listings.
Producers are up in arms, but what can they do?
When it comes to theatre vs print media, the only thing that theatre can do is the equivalent of “writing a very strongly worded letter.”
>
> Paul Treasure wrote:
> > Yup, 18 column inches on Page 2 of TodayÂ’s WestÂ…
>
> Apart from a single column inch in the IT section six years
> ago, it's the only reporting we've ever had in the west.
>
> :-)
I must admit that I was furious with Ron BanksÂ’ article on David Williamson a couple of weekends ago.
He was talking about how WA has been deprived of the most of the later Williamson plays, in particular he mentioned how we had not had the opportunity to see “Corporate Vibes”.
Now, seeing as I was IN the WA premiere of this play only six months ago, I was ready to raise the rooftops.
I know that, as a community, we are below the notice of Ron Banks, but to deny our even existence???
It wouldn’t have been so bad if he’d said something like “…only had an amateur production” rather than state that it hadn’t been done.
I could have lived with the “only”.
I think the Worst Australian Ron WÂ… sorry Banks is about ten years behind.
Our community has, in a backward way, actually benefitted from the decline of the WA Theatre Company and Hole in the Wall.
The average standard of shows is a LOT better now than when I started in amateur theatre fifteen years ago.
Mind you, we are not the only theatre community to have problems with their print media organ.
The NY Times have just drastically reduced their coverage of live theater including abandoning their Free Sunday listings.
Producers are up in arms, but what can they do?
When it comes to theatre vs print media, the only thing that theatre can do is the equivalent of “writing a very strongly worded letter.”
CrispianTue, 26 Oct 2004, 11:51 am
Re: Inside Cover-version
Mr Craig Williams....
If you're writing to trivia columns....you have got too much free time :)
I must admit, I use to ring up PMFM (now 92.9) at 10:25pm on a friday/sat evening for an 'instant request' and I managed to get through enough times that the DJ started to recognise my voice. Now thats sad.
Now I get paid to be on-air with another radio station :P
Crispy.
If you're writing to trivia columns....you have got too much free time :)
I must admit, I use to ring up PMFM (now 92.9) at 10:25pm on a friday/sat evening for an 'instant request' and I managed to get through enough times that the DJ started to recognise my voice. Now thats sad.
Now I get paid to be on-air with another radio station :P
Crispy.
Walter PlingeWed, 27 Oct 2004, 09:27 pm
Re: No final asnwer
Grant wrote:
>
>Sadly, no one else seems prepared to speak on behalf of or for the >producers in answer to the questions raised here.
That's because they're all incompetent amateurs and it's not only the producers who are to blame. The first production put on by the MS Society and hopefully the last. As stated by several other people in this forum, the casting decisions in any major production should, by convention, be FINAL. I am disgusted with the severe lack of accountability on the Director's AND MS Societies part.
Ashimo wrote:
>
> 3) One of the understudies being miscast - surely the
> director's responsibility - another 'professional'. And what
> does this 'professional' do when confronted by this problem?
> Sit there and allow Dave to lay the blame on the young actor,
> just doing his/her best and trying to get a great experience
> without having their confidence destroyed.
I'm not 100% certain of what understudy cast member this refers to but for the sake of the MS Society and everyone involved in the final direction of the production's sake it wasn't Regan Digby as she is one of the many young talents of the production who have shown enormous potential at a remarkably young age.
The mistakes made by the Director of the 'K & I' and MS Society are irreparable. The "sacked" VOLUNTARY understudies and cast members deserve an all-inclusive elucidation regarding the ill-treatment of this matter and quite rightly should have been given this explanation at the time of the decision!
>
>Sadly, no one else seems prepared to speak on behalf of or for the >producers in answer to the questions raised here.
That's because they're all incompetent amateurs and it's not only the producers who are to blame. The first production put on by the MS Society and hopefully the last. As stated by several other people in this forum, the casting decisions in any major production should, by convention, be FINAL. I am disgusted with the severe lack of accountability on the Director's AND MS Societies part.
Ashimo wrote:
>
> 3) One of the understudies being miscast - surely the
> director's responsibility - another 'professional'. And what
> does this 'professional' do when confronted by this problem?
> Sit there and allow Dave to lay the blame on the young actor,
> just doing his/her best and trying to get a great experience
> without having their confidence destroyed.
I'm not 100% certain of what understudy cast member this refers to but for the sake of the MS Society and everyone involved in the final direction of the production's sake it wasn't Regan Digby as she is one of the many young talents of the production who have shown enormous potential at a remarkably young age.
The mistakes made by the Director of the 'K & I' and MS Society are irreparable. The "sacked" VOLUNTARY understudies and cast members deserve an all-inclusive elucidation regarding the ill-treatment of this matter and quite rightly should have been given this explanation at the time of the decision!
crgwllmsThu, 28 Oct 2004, 10:25 pm
Re: My Cover
Crispian wrote:
>
> Mr Craig Williams....
>
>
> If you're writing to trivia columns....you have got too much
> free time :)
Yes, but what's so unusual about an artist spending all their free time trying to get their name in print?
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> Mr Craig Williams....
>
>
> If you're writing to trivia columns....you have got too much
> free time :)
Yes, but what's so unusual about an artist spending all their free time trying to get their name in print?
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeWed, 26 Jan 2005, 10:16 pm
Re: What King and I pro-am
Mr Freind,
Wonderful... yes. Thats how I feel! Despite my overwhelming desire to raise my voice and cry heil with pleasure, I must first correct you as to the status of your wages.
Of course you were paid for the work undertaken during your ten-day 'working holiday' in London. There were many who were entertained that night who will attest to the arresting power of your voice. Indeed, we have never had a crowd like that before. Heil!
The sales of kung-pow chicken were genuinely unique and I want to personally say that you are welcome back in my restuarant at any time. You can contact me twenty-four hours a day via email; or via my local Xanax dealer. I'm sure you know him well.
Nik
Wonderful... yes. Thats how I feel! Despite my overwhelming desire to raise my voice and cry heil with pleasure, I must first correct you as to the status of your wages.
Of course you were paid for the work undertaken during your ten-day 'working holiday' in London. There were many who were entertained that night who will attest to the arresting power of your voice. Indeed, we have never had a crowd like that before. Heil!
The sales of kung-pow chicken were genuinely unique and I want to personally say that you are welcome back in my restuarant at any time. You can contact me twenty-four hours a day via email; or via my local Xanax dealer. I'm sure you know him well.
Nik