Minister Foss Bails Out Another
Fri, 10 Sept 1999, 09:45 pmWalter Plinge3 posts in thread
Minister Foss Bails Out Another
Fri, 10 Sept 1999, 09:45 pmThis is just me playing Devil's Advocate...Steven Shaw's Press release included this paragraph:"The irony for the Theatre profession is that Concert Enterprises is nota fully professional company. It employs and pays a small number ofperformers in major roles as well as the musicians and crew it hires. Everyone else is a volunteer. Mr Foss's actions suggest he has a preference in offeringsurvival support to a company using unpaid volunteers rather than to acompany employing waged, highly skilled professionals."Now, as far as I was aware, Effie Crump only ever employed a small numberof performers, whereas Concert Enterprises, as well as employing a 'smallnumber of performers as well as the musicians and crew...', gave somepossibly valuable experience to its 'unpaid volunteers'.I'm also a little affronted by Steven Shaw's assumption that becausesomeone is paid, they are immediately more worthy than someone who is notpaid. As a person who does a small amount of volunteer work (and I'm nottalking about my acting) I find this attitude insulting.Now for the silver lining...If, as Mr Shaw says, Mr Foss has "a preference in offering survival supportto a company using unpaid volunteers", maybe this is an avenue that Acorncould possibly look at? Personally, if I had to choose between Effie, MTCand Acorn surviving, I know which one has shown they deserve it most, bytheir tenacity and dedication to their cause if nothing else. Sue, if youread this, count me in as a strong supporter for the Acorn cause.Paul Treasure[Keeping my fire extinguisher close to hand, because I know I'm going toget flamed badly over this one! ;)]
Re: Minister Foss Bails Out Another
Mon, 13 Sept 1999, 08:24 amEMAILNOTICES>no> Fire extinguisher at the ready I hope Paul!> Aren't we all getting terribly terribly over sensitive. Everytime> someone mentions the word'amateur' it's taken as being in a derogatory> manner.Anyone who keeps regular counsel with this group would know of this, my favourite bugbear. I have come to the opinion that for the most part, the term "Amateur" is interpreted, as it should be by those who are amateur - Amateur Radio users, Amateur Sportspeople, Amateur Theatre. It is when it's used by the general public (and inadequate Ministers) that these ridiculous connotations appear creep into the definition.However, while most of "us" are aware of this miss-communication of definition, we also seem submissive towards it. The attitude is that's it is something that can't be changed. As long as "we" have this attitude then the longer it will persist. Many of those whom I've met and exchanged dialogue with via this site, are trying to do something about this and that is great.> I always thought that broad shoulders and an ability to shrug> off insults, both real and perceived were a necessary part of theatrical> (as well as 'ordinary')life.It's the ability to "shrug off" as Norma nicely describes that needs to be changed. Shrugging off should only be the begining. Once you shrug it off, then you need to stress the point in no uncertain words. We are professional in our attitude and our passion and there's nor reason why we should not be thought of the same light as someone who gets paid to do the same thing.There's also the other argument - Without amateur (unpaid and passionate) theatre, where would professional actors get their basic training? By definition, even schools like WAAPA and NIDA are Amateur theatre. More-so as the Actor PAYS to act.Professionals have to start somewhere. I feel another Foss letter coming on.Jeff "Passionate" Watkins