Auditions

> Amanda... I was one of those people who auditioned for Les
> Mis and Pat told me right at the onset that this was not a
> paid job... it's a shame you were not...

Payment for me was never an issue - I knowingly passed up two paid performing jobs and jeopardised a third by being in the show. I assumed from the outset that I was not going to be paid. Had it been made clear from the outset, however, that there were parties in the production who were going to be paid I would have liked to have know who, when, where, why and how much before I agreed to do the show to make sure I wasn't getting involved with a dodgy operator (which I ultimately did). I assumed everything was going to be completely above board, as they had been in all other companies I'd been involved with. The other companies I mentioned in my previous post have a completely open book policy about their funds distribution. Nine months down the track, I still have no idea where any of the Les Mis money went. I don't care if I don't have any of it or not - I wouldn't be in this biz if I wanted money. But I sure as hell would like a little more honesty and accountablity from any of Pat Barton's companies.

> Is there a reason Pat wouldn't or shouldn't have a share of a
> business he is a part of?

Because in any other business in the country, and most of the civilised world, making huge profits off the backs of unpaid workers is illegal, and down right unfair. Yes, Cameron Mackintosh makes a profit from his shows. But not until every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Mavis involved in his shows gets renumerated in many more ways than just 'performance experience'.

> I don't know the inner workings of
> Pat's business,

Neither, it seems, does anyone else. I would be interested to know, also, if the tax department knows anything about the inner workings of Pat's numerous companies.

> but I do know that it affords an opportunity
> for those who want to have experience in the industry...

No - it definitely does not. Performance opportunity, yes. Industry experience? Absolutely not. Financial benefit is Pat's (and any company he is involved with) primary objective. Not one person with industry experience or contacts was involved in that show (with the exception of many of the performers). Not one person worth his or her salt in the industry saw that show, with the possible exception of John Milson. But then, he is a director highly accessable to the legitimate community theatre scene anyway, as he directs for them almost as frequently as he does within the professional scene.

> albeit unpaid... what Pat does is not abnormal or legally
> wrong...

OK - I'm going to start a business. I'm going to get twenty people to work unpaid making t-shirts. I'll provide them with materials and tea and coffee facilities, but I'll make them pay a $20 deposit on the sewing machines. I'll make them work for 25 hours per week, then around 40 per week in the final four weeks. I'll then sell each t-shirt at $100 each when the materials for each cost me $5. I'm then going to take all of the money I made and send the workers home, giving about half of them (if that) the deposit back on the sewing machines.

Still sound legal and normal? Sounds like a sweatshop to me.

> Does it need to change?

Absolutely, positively and without argument - yes. It only happens in the performing arts because actors and crew are so willing and desparate to be involved in their craft. If the same thing happened in any other industry, Pat Barton would now be cooling his heels in the deepest, darkest jail in the country.

> Perhaps... but there will be a whole
> lot less opportunity to perform in Perth if that occurs...

I don't think so - Pat Barton has put on one show per two years (if that) over the last 10 years. The repeated collapses of his companies have seen to that. There is at least one new show on at the Blue Room every two weeks. Every single company in the ITA does at least four shows per year. If you don't believe me, go and have a look at the auditions section of this page.

> Just a thought but if the show was a flop Amanda, who would
> take the financial brunt? I would think it would have to be
> Pat... surely that means that WIN or LOSE, Pat Barton is the
> sole person responsible?

True - but I understand he didn't pay for the rights for the show, so he saved himself a whole lot of dough there. He didn't even give Schoenberg and Boublil the basic courtesy of mentioning their names in the programme - have a look. Their minor contribution to the show (i.e. writing the entire thing) is not even acknowledged. He also charged phenomenal ticket prices - $30 and upwards? He could have run the show for half its season, on semi-filled houses and still made a profit. Since he didn't pay ushers either (many of whom were parents, who he also didn't give comps to, despite their contribution to front of house) he would have saved himself a truckload. Oh, he found just enough money, however, to pay two of the ushers - his daughter and her husband.

What I'm saying, is he protects himself against any kind of loss, not always using the most legally transparent or financially ethical means. The most he would ever lose is a couple of hundred dollars at the most. Probably about the same amount the unpaid members of the cast and crew spent on petrol money, parking, loss of working hours...

> You, Pat or anyone else are allowed to be a part of many
> company's... being in one doesn't negate the validity of
> another...

Except, and I refer you back to my original post, that every one of them is no longer in existance for exactly the same reasons. Shouldn't that tell you something?

> There is just one thing I cannot understand. Why would you
> remain in your role and the production when you felt so
> strongly about these points?

Les Mis was the show that made me want to become an actor. I saw it when I was 11 and have never looked back. Playing Mme Thenardier was marvellous and I was going to put up with just about bloody anything to do it. You are kind to have made those comments about my performance, because despite the pain and grief that show caused, being on stage was great. Had I known the situation from the beginning, however, I never would have auditioned in the first place. I will never knowingly, in future, become involved, or remain involved, with such an unethical and financially unsound company again.

> I understand the creative reason... and after seeing you in
> the role of Mrs Thenadier, I also believe you were a huge
> asset to the show... it just appears odd that you didn't move
> on to something which may have in fact given you both payment
> AND experience... and better feelings about what you were a
> part of...

My original opportunities in that respect were well and truly gone by the time I became cognizant of the situation with Music Spectrum. If anything else had come up around that time, believe you me, I would have taken it. But - and this is always the case with acting - nothing else did. I have subsequently become involved in several productions which have restored my faith in the theatre, but as you can tell, my, and many others', feelings towards the Music Spectrum debacle are still very raw. Hence my disgust and horror when the same person has the gall to do it yet again.

> For those of you out there who want to audition for MY FAIR
> LADY... take your questions with you to the audition... ask
> about payment or benefits etc... know what you are agreeing
> to and then be happy with your decision whatever it may be...

And I reiterate, I urge everybody NOT to audition for My Fair Lady, or even put money into seeing it. You can take all the questions you like about the financial structure of the company, but I can guarantee you that the only straight answer you get will be that you will not be paid. If you have no moral objection to funding another person's house extensions, that's fine. But for the sake of Perth's legitimate performing arts industry, please, please don't encourage people like this.

[%sig%]