Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Actors Equity worse than Republican Party | |
| Posted by: Al10chim 04:19 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| Raising dues so they can pay some woman over 400K a year to hold an unnecessary position; Equity has begun to take away the voices of it's membership. Secret voting by the council. Issues must be submitted in advance so the council can decide whether the membership can discuss them at meetings. Time and money wasted so as not to offend Gypsy's. Unlike SAG/AFTRA members over 70 must pay full dues to remain active. They won't even wave dues for members who for 50 years or more have paid dues; are mostly retired; but want to remain an active part of a union they have supported for half a century. Meanwhile Equity sends people off on romantic weekends to check on regional theaters. Equity has deputy's who are part of every show who already take care of any problems. But by all means lets keep spending the money to re-name robes. Let anybody play any role unless it's a white person wanting to play a minority role. What happened to "acting". When anyone could play anything but went to the trouble of putting on make-up or wearing a mask to look the part they are playing? Equity continues to contribute to diminishing of the art of acting. Once again while becoming more and more secretive in their actions. As so well put in "Lil Abner" "Put em back. Put em back. Put em back they way they was." | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party | |
| Posted by: PurpleMoney 02:14 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - Al10chim 04:19 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| I must say that if a touring house is booking equity and non-equity tours, then the only solution to stop this is for AEA to ban their actors from performing in non-union venues. Which means contract with producers must change. Producers will fight it but it has to happen to save the jobs of the AEA members. When a major venue is unable to book Hamilton because they book a non-equity show you will see results. When there's no business, there's no show. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party | |
| Posted by: AnObserver 08:27 am EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - Al10chim 04:19 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| AEA is horrible. The non-profits get away with paying actors very little and I think it's because AEA is weak. The idea seems to be 1. actors are so eager to show what they can do they will work for peanuts and/or 2. there are new kids getting off the bus every day who will work for free so let's pay the established people a mere pittance. It's a racket. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party | |
| Posted by: seenenuf 06:46 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - AnObserver 08:27 am EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| As a union member for over 30 years, I can fully agree. AEA is a joke. Being a union member has stunted me far more times than it has supported me. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 08:35 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - seenenuf 06:46 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| So sorry you feel that way. I've been a member for more than 40. Our union is not perfect but then look at unions all over the country. Progress is slow, wage growth along with other workers is slow but every increase has been dearly won. I have felt very protected under many contracts-breaks, length of days, overtime, even size of fridges on the road. I've served on committees and seen how every new rule is fought over by powerful and skilled producers and negotiators. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 01:40 am EDT 07/15/18 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 01:28 am EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - Al10chim 04:19 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| I actually know some older actors who voted for the higher union dues, because they thought that by doing so it would give THEM the protection of not having to pay these dues that OTHERS would cover them for. Silly people. You voted the same way folks voted for Trump, and he is screwing the poor working farmers and factory workers by presuming all the mayhem he has propagated wouldn't impact YOU. You were wrong. It was too high a union dues rate, and there wasn't a public forum to discuss this. Union heads decided to just have this in writing on mailings and on the union website, but barring perhaps some comments (which other union members couldn't read), there was no thrashing of ideas and counterpoints, just some notice that (I'm paraphrasing) "your union representatives recommend you vote for these increases". There was no meaningful way to discuss this with a house full of interested actors on this issue or having some sort of dialogue on the union website. It's very fine to have various talented members in roles that were traditionally played by white actors; why not? It's been done in opera for years by famous singers like Leontyne Price and Kathleen Battle. Of course, famous white Otellos would be eviscerated nowadays for doing the role. Plus I wonder what would be a reaction behind the table it a white singer, say one who went to high school in Harlem and was in gospel choir and got the style exactly right, decided to audition for a production of "Ain't Misbehavin' " and gave the best audition of anyone. Would the person in the new position, whose mission is to promulgate diverse casting, meet with that white member if he wanted to put in a bid for something like that? Or a woman who wanted to play a man's role, or a man who wanted to play a traditional woman's role? Or would they be help trying to shut down a production of "The Mikado" because after many years of being enjoyed as a standard rep of operetta, people are now deciding that a satire of Britain placed among the the Japanese is now suddenly offensive to some, and thus entire productions should now be jettisoned or replaced by another G&S work in its place? If the "Mikado" offends someone (and lots more people seem to be enjoying by showing publicly and exhibitionistically how offended they are by things nowadays), don't buy a ticket to "The Mikado". I don't know who is getting $400K but everyone in Equity should be working for EVERYONE. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 03:22 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - PlayWiz 01:28 am EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| Never quite sure how seriously these posts are meant. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| A Wonderful Answer to Historical Privilege: "The Marskado" | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:08 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - whereismikeyfl 03:22 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| Taylor Mac devotes most of a decade to solving the question of how we allow "The MIkado" to be performed by non-Asians by transplanting the show to Mars. As G&S didn't actually know any Japanese people to base their characters on, there is nothing inherently Japanese about the play, which in some respects makes it worse that it's using Japanese bodies to tell a British story. But unless we find a living people on Mars, which seems unlikely, there is no reason not to pick a different essentially fictitious people to tell a British story, and set it on Mars. Taylor Mac then does this for at least half an hour (in judy's words, it goes on a lot longer than I felt it should), with fabulous costumes and lights (at least in Philadelphia, which is apparently the best it's looked). This conversation is making me think that Tams Witmark should license a version of this. It would give a lot of amateur operetta groups the chance to keep doing this show without having to put on yellowface to do it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? | |
| Posted by: theaterbear 02:17 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - Al10chim 04:19 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| This posting, while making a few good points, was undermined by white privilege and flat out racism. Just because YOU weren't offended by the name of the robe makes it a "waste of time and money" in renaming it. That's not how that works. And are you seriously suggesting white actors be cast in minority roles? What world do you live in where there are an equal amount of white and non-white roles out there? Seriously? You're privilege is showing and it ain't pretty. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? | |
| Posted by: seenenuf 06:49 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? - theaterbear 02:17 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| It has nothing to do with Privilege. Its called Acting Make Believe How Daring |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 07:16 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? - seenenuf 06:49 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| I guess some of us just don't want to make believe that we live in a world of only white people. To some of us, that sounds like the fantasy of erasing all the people of color from this world. Daring indeed, but not a daring that we should be encouraging. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? | |
| Posted by: seenenuf 08:21 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? - Singapore/Fling 07:16 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| It does NOT imply that we want a world of only white people. It does imply that anything is possible. It in no way implies erasing people of color. Alarmist. Hate Monger. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:12 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? - seenenuf 08:21 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| I see your optimism in the power of make believe, but unfortunately we do not live in a world in which anything is possible, and we never have lived in that world. What may have seemed like limitless possibility to one group of people meant that another group of people were being excluded from the stage. I'm sorry to have to burst your fantasy, but when you bemoan the loss of the opportunity for white people to put on wigs and make-up and play people of color, you are bemoaning the loss of a world in which people of color were erased from the popular culture. That may not be what you intend - you're welcome to wrongfully accuse me of hate mongering, but I will not make any presumptions about your intentions - but that is the reality. A production of "The King and I" in which the Thai people are played by white folks is a production that has erased Asian people. It is as zero sum as that. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? | |
| Posted by: seenenuf 11:09 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? - Singapore/Fling 09:12 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| I am not bemoaning the loss of the opportunity for white people to put on wigs and make-up and play people of color. I totally embrace the notion of anyone playing anyone. I am saying that theatre should be about PLAY. No boundaries, No borders. Theatre allows us to create a world where there are more possibilities. Hence, its great power to teach and educate. If I wanted to produce The King and I, because I love the story, craft, and score and hope to extend its beauty to others, and lived in a community with few Asians, should I not? Should not some school in Thailand produce The Sound of Music? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:45 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? - seenenuf 11:09 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| For this conversation, it's important to keep in mind that theater is specific to the location and the culture in which it's made. The theater practice in Thailand has no bearing on our practice in The States, because Thailand and other Southeast Asian nations are operating from a different cultural context than the US and other Western nations that practiced colonialism. We could get into a whole side conversation about how the cultural needs of East Asians are not the same as - and are often diametrically opposed to - the cultural needs of Asian Americans, but that's for another time perhaps. If you live in a community without enough East Asians to perform "The King and I", then, yes, sadly, you should not produce it, unless you can find a way to transplant it to a different time and place than 19th Century Bangkok. In the same way that I'm presuming you wouldn't produce "Porgy and Bess" if you didn't have black or brown people to be in it, you shouldn't do "The King and I" with all white people. One is blackface and the other is yellowface. They are the same thing, and they are historically related to practices that created boundaries and borders that prevented actors of color from having a place in the culture or that seriously limited the access they had. If you are aspiring to a world in which there are no boundaries or borders, then the first job is to create an entirely border free playing field for people of all color, and we are a far way from that in America and the West right now. Performing "The King and I" with white people in make-up sends a message, however subliminally, that Asian bodies are expendable or otherwise unreal. It sends a message that they are imaginary and make believe. That phrase may not strike you as fair, but it is on that many, many people of color would agree with. In respect to their wishes, and in observance of the structural barriers that have prevented people of color from accessing Broadway and Hollywood as easily as white people, the least that we can do is not have white people playing non-white people. Theater should be about PLAY, absolutely, but that PLAY must be channeled in a direction other than race. Let's do "The King and I" in an underwater sea colony, or as a story of Leopards and Lemurs, and PLAY all we want. But don't play Asian people if you're white, at least not right now, and possibly never. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| THIS!!! (n/m) | |
| Posted by: showtunesoprano 11:00 am EDT 07/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? - Singapore/Fling 09:45 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| n/m | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? | |
| Posted by: Al10chim 09:16 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? - theaterbear 02:17 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| I know it did sound racist. I really am not. Equity will not release the racial breakdown of membership and I think the scales have tipped in favor of minorities. My point is play any part just put on the make up to look it. What would happen if there was an all white production of a Martin Luther King musical? Riots in the streets. A regional production had to be cancelled because an all white cast was singing Gospel music. Yet no one has a problem with "Hamilton". Let's find a fair balance for everyone. Equity has played a big part in messing up this whole issue. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:58 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? - Al10chim 09:16 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| A) What is your source/evidence for Equity being majority non-white (something that seems unlikely, considering that the adult population of the country is not yet majority non-white)? B) Are you seeing your perceived non-white majority reflected in the casting of professional stage productions (which still look majority white to my eyes)? C) What would be wrong with AEA being majority non-white? D) What show was canceled over gospel music? Robert LePage's show was canceled because he had white people dressed as Southern slaves singing negro spirituals. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference in those two scenarios. E) I'm also sure if you give it some thought, you could find many differences between white people playing the black slaves that historical white people owned versus Americans of all colors playing the historical figures that birthed America. While both scenarios would spark a profound conversation, I'm sure you can see the problem with white people casting themselves as slaves. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: White privilege | |
| Posted by: Gustave 03:49 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: So MAGA to MEGA - Make Equity Great Again? - theaterbear 02:17 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| "White privilege" is an offensive, racist phrase suggesting that ALL white people are granted certain privileges. The heart of diversity is (or is supposed to be) the recognition of individual differences, not group labeling. Gustave | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| That's not what it means | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 04:01 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: White privilege - Gustave 03:49 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| To quote someone more eloquent than myself: White privilege doesn't mean your life hasn't been hard. It means that your skin color isn't one of the things making it harder. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That's not what it means | |
| Posted by: Gustave 05:00 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: That's not what it means - MockingbirdGirl 04:01 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| You miss the point. How do you know my life hasn't been harder because of the color of my (white) skin? Maybe I was raised in a Black neighborhood. Or passed over for promotion in favor of a less-qualified "diversity" candidate. You're choosing to label an entire group of people based on the color of their skin, i.e., racism. Gustave | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That's not what it means | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 05:08 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: That's not what it means - Gustave 05:00 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| You name suggests that you might not be an American. I can assure you that in America, every white person who has ever gone on a job interview, dealt with cops, shopped for jewelry, etc. knows the advantages they have because they are white. You have to be brain dead not to notice it if you live in the US. It may be different in Europe or Africa, but in the US "white privilege" is very real. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That's not what it means | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:38 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: That's not what it means - whereismikeyfl 05:08 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| You[r] name suggests that you might not be an American. Ok, so I know what you mean to say, but how you said it really could be easily taken as a microaggression. I've become more sensitive to this lately due to some tensions in my workplace. It's a very easy trap to fall into, but it can also come across as very offensive to the person you're specking to, whether you intended that or not. Gustave could very well be an American citizen, despite their heritage. Don't jump to conclusions just because the name may not be the most obvious common one. For that matter, it absolutely could simply be a screenname, just as mine is Chromolume. Just as "mikey" may make some people think you must be a kid. But clearly you're not. ;-) Careful the things you say...posters will listen... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That's not what it means | |
| Posted by: Gustave 05:33 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: That's not what it means - whereismikeyfl 05:08 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| And you know this? EVERY American? Really? Gustave | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That's not what it means | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 06:38 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: That's not what it means - Gustave 05:33 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| When I hear of someone who can actually catalog systematic discrimination for being white, then yes. Even in your examples, you could only come up with a few idiosyncratic individual scenarios--and I suspect that really is all there is out there. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That's not what it means | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:17 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: That's not what it means - whereismikeyfl 06:38 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| I think the case of this hypothetical white kid raised in a black neighborhood is actually a great example of how white privilege works. In their neighborhood, this white kid will be in the minority, and it is possible that this white person would have a difficult time gaining entry to many of the social, cultural, and economic institutions of the neighborhood. By learning the codes and behaviors of their neighborhood, this hypothetical white person may also forfeit access to certain white institutions that judge people on markers of white performance as well as appearance. In these ways, we see where white privilege falls to help this specific white person. At the same time, when it comes to the police state in the USA, this white person is still less likely to be racially profiled, harassed on the street, and wrongfully arrested, and if they do commit a crime, they will likely face lighter sentencing than a black person would for that same crime. In this way, we see how white privilege has benefited this person, even though they grew up in a non-white neighborhood and may have had other disadvantages. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That's not what it means | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:27 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: That's not what it means - Gustave 05:33 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| What is the point you want to make? You seem to be insisting that because we can't vouch for *every single white person*, that negates the basic reality of systemic oppression and state violence against people of color in America. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That's not what it means | |
| Posted by: Gustave 08:06 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: That's not what it means - Singapore/Fling 06:27 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so this will be my last comment on the subject. I (obviously) agree that Blacks and other minorities in the United States have faced discrimination. In many cases, more than that. But speaking of "white privilege" has elements of the same kind of thinking, i.e., treating everyone in the group (substitute Blacks, Jews, Asians, gay men and women etc.) as if they all shared the same unsavory characteristic. As I wrote before, I believe the use of the phrase "white privilege" is racist and offensive. You do not. So be it. Gustave PS. As long as microaggressions have been brought up -- contributors should be careful writing "America" when they really mean "United States." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That's not what it means | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 10:19 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:08 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: That's not what it means - Gustave 08:06 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| The discussion isn't going anywhere because you aren't discussing the issues you're raising. This branch of the thread has been respectful, but even when treated with respect, you are unable to engage in a conversation about race that asks you to simply explain your thoughts on anyone's terms but your own. The act that you have done is itself an expression of white privilege. White privilege is living in a world in which your ethnic identity is so central to the culture that you never have to think of race as something that applies to you. It is never being an other in the dominant culture, and never experiencing what it is to be an other while engaging with that dominant culture. It is being able to ignore race entirely unless it negatively affects you, and only havingit affect you because your previously limitless opportunities as a white man are now limited by people of other races. It is labeling anything that points to the existence of racial privilege in the United States of America, such as conversations of privilege, as racist, and then running away when the conversation starts to get a little real. And PS - anywhere you go in the Americas, being white will be to your advantage, that's one of the wonders of colonialism. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That's not what it means | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 09:07 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:04 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: That's not what it means - Gustave 08:06 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| PS. As long as microaggressions have been brought up -- contributors should be careful writing "America" when they really mean "United States." The official name, of course, is both - "The United States Of America." (And of course I think of Thomson in 1776 commenting that that doesn't seem like a very good name for a new country.) But it's been called "America" as often as it's called "The United States" or "the US" or "The USA" or even "The US of A." I don't think that any of those titles are any more right or meaningful than another - no connotations, etc. We know from context whether someone is referring to New York as a state or a city - we know from context that one means either the state of Washington or Washington DC. This isn't Bet Hatikvah vs. Petah Tikvah. With a P. And Irving Berlin wrote "God Bless America" all those years ago, not "God Bless You, Nited States." ;-) Next topic, please - as I do agree this thread is going nowhere - with a B. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That's not what it means | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 07:35 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: That's not what it means - Singapore/Fling 06:27 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| With due respect to the people doing a fine job of articulating what "white privilege" means in this context and in general, it feels like the thread is starting to veer off-course and may have outlived its usefulness. Gustave and the OP seem determined NOT to understand the history of race in the United States. It does not take an advanced degree in Critical Race Studies to understand that non-white people, since the time of the Pilgrims, have been dispossessed or treated as possessions in this country, and that theatre is one of the many venues in which they have had lack of access. If posters truly need deep explanation as to why blackface (or yellowface or redface or transface, as I have heard it called) continue the lack of fairness, I'm not sure any amount of eloquent and straightforward explanation will help. It certainly doesn't seem to be helping in our nation at large. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 11:09 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - Al10chim 04:19 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| "Let anybody play any role unless it's a white person wanting to play a minority role. What happened to "acting". When anyone could play anything but went to the trouble of putting on make-up or wearing a mask to look the part they are playing? " It was WHITE actors who could play anything. You did not see many black, hispanic, or asian actors in Oklahoma, 1776, My Fair Lady, etc. in the old days--only white actors could play ethnicities other than their own. But you are right. Equity really ought to be looking out for protecting opportunities for its white members and let its minority members start their own union. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party | |
| Posted by: kess0078 10:53 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - Al10chim 04:19 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| Who is "some woman" we are paying "over 400k a year to hold what unnecessary position? What issues has the council voted on in secret? How much money do you honestly think was "wasted" renaming the robe? Who got sent on a "romantic" weekend to check on which regional theaters? Maybe some of your issues with Equity might be discussed more seriously on the board if you'd provide details and examples. This wall-of-text rant isn't helping your argument. Glad you got it off your chest, though, I guess. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party | |
| Posted by: Al10chim 09:42 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - kess0078 10:53 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| I am not exactly sure of title $400K plus is given. It's the equivalent to CEO. Equity is a surprisingly small union and has an elected President and council. They alone should run the union If issues they can't handle arise they can hire legal advice. The USA does not pay a CEO to run it (Though currently that might not be so bad.) Issues are not voted on in secret. What can be brought up for discussion at membership is. How each council member votes on issues is now kept secret. Several emails were sent to the entire membership. Non of which offered the choice of keeping the name "Gypsy". All this back and forth emailing was done by a paid employee of actors Equity. Also many individual emails were replied to quite bluntly by an employee. "Time is money". A director friend (Who is a member of The Directors Guild) was upstate directing a show and began a conversation with a couple in a restaurant at dinner. They informed they were there for the weekend and had been sent by Equity to just make sure everything was okay at a local theater. Sorry I was never told the name of the theater. I hope this has been helpful. At least you did not turn my entire posting into a discussion of racism. I can see how some may take me to be a racist. I am not and am sorry I could not put my points across more clearly. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:13 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - Al10chim 09:42 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| It sounds like Equity was doing its job by monitoring the conditions of the employment of Equity actors in a regional theater. Even if the monitors were a couple, what intel do you have that it wasn't a legitimate business trip? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS | |
| Posted by: boyartist 10:05 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - Al10chim 04:19 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| As someone who has been a member of several unions, and supports the concept of unions, I can also relate to some of the issues raised by Al10chim. Actors Equity has done a lot of very important things for actors. However, from what I have seen over the past few decades, it doesn't seem to be as strong/important as it should be. If you want the example of really strong unions in the area of entertainment, just look at the Musicians Union, and The Stage Hands Union, ( this might not be the correct name). Nobody tries to mess with those guys! FOR EXAMPLE...did "Harry Potter" really need the original British cast? I'd bet big money that this production could have hired an all American cast, and it would still be SRO for a very long time. When Sir Cameron MacIntosh threatened to cancel "Miss Saigon", just before it opened, unless a non-Asian Brit could repeat his West End role...Equity rolled over! MacIntosh was clever, Equity was dumb! My real puzzlement is based on all of the Non-Equity touring productions. What kind of union would allow this? A very weak Equity, that's who. If my union was paying six figures to any officer in the union, I would want the big issues addressed, not GYPSY robe names. Clean house my actor friends....CLEAN HOUSE ! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: re Non Equity tours .... | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 01:10 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS - boyartist 10:05 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| ... while AEA does not like them of course - AEA has no legal way to stop or impede them. There was a brief period when SDC was trying to stop members from recreating their Broadway work for non AEA tours - but again, their was no legal way to impose this restraint. Non Equity tours do almost universally carry some AFM musicians, and all stage hands do have to be IATSE. That's because all touring venues have contracts with AFM and IATSE (and AGMA usually) - but not with AEA, USA, or SDC. They are not producing houses, so they have no reason to sign agreements with these other unions. While big concert acts and orchestras play these venues regularly, all unionized -(although I'll be there are some non AFM rock bands) - actors are not protected by AEA on the road because these venues are not signatories to any AEA agreement. If they did sign, they then would, as they feel, double the cost of Broadway tours that come in - which would not be in their interests. This is an area (the road) in which it is very hard to see how AEA could change the landscape. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 10:59 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 10:55 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS - boyartist 10:05 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| These are some legitimate gripes. Problem with the original poster's comment is that even if they believe that the issue is political correctness being used as a smoke screen to obscure a weak union, they not only didn't articulate it very well but they also fell into its alleged trap by focusing mainly on the smokescreen and not what might be behind it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS | |
| Posted by: manchurch03104 10:47 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS - boyartist 10:05 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| it's all about leadership, or the lack thereof, in this case. I am an AEA member. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 10:33 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS - boyartist 10:05 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| FOR EXAMPLE...did "Harry Potter" really need the original British cast? Does the revival of The King and I in London really need Kelli O'Hara and Ken Watanabe? I, for one, am glad of the two-way street. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS | |
| Posted by: boyartist 01:09 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS - MockingbirdGirl 10:33 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| MockingbirdGirl...maybe I'm wrong, but a revival of a sixty year old musical, which might need "names" in the leading roles to sell tickets, I'd say...perhaps. ( although Kelli & Ken are not what I'd consider names at the box office), but "Miss Saigon" did not need to cast Jonathan...what's-his-name in the Broadway production. If they announced at today's matinee of "Harry Potter" that the roles of Gobbly Gook and Kiss-My-Wand were being played by two of the understudies, would anyone run to the box office and demand a refund? ANYWAY...I'm not a Gypsy or an actor. My real gripe is Equity's lack of power in stopping those Non-Equity tours. If I were an actor, I would be FURIOUS! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS | |
| Posted by: stgmgr 10:31 am EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS - boyartist 01:09 pm EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| How would you suggest that Equity stop Non-Equity tours? By definition, they have no jurisdiction over non-union actors. They can--and do--prohibit their own members from participating. Have I missed an obvious solution? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 03:40 pm EDT 07/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS - stgmgr 10:31 am EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| One way would be to propose a tour contract that would make it possible for road producers to use Equity members on tours that would be unlikely to make money using the regular tour contract, either because the show is not a zeitgeisty phenomenon, or because it'll be the 2nd or 3rd national tour for the property. Perhaps they already do this, but, if they don't, it only makes sense to have their members working and, perhaps, earning a bit less money, than not working at all. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS | |
| Posted by: stgmgr 03:46 pm EDT 07/18/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party...PERHAPS - JereNYC 03:40 pm EDT 07/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| I can't speak from personal experience--but I seem to recall complaints from members that Equity would grant whatever concessions in conditions or salaries that the producers would request. So there would already seem to be this option, and it hasn't stopped non-union tours from existing. (Perhaps another reader could provide more specific information.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I love the smell of white privilege in the morning (nm) | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 08:41 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - Al10chim 04:19 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party | |
| Posted by: StageLover 07:38 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - Al10chim 04:19 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| "Let anybody play any role unless it's a white person wanting to play a minority role." Are you actually suggesting white people should be playing black people? Or was this just an 4:00 AM rant? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Hear! Hear! (n.m.) | |
| Posted by: TheHarveyBoy 06:04 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
| In reply to: Actors Equity worse than Republican Party - Al10chim 04:19 am EDT 07/14/18 | |
|
|
|
| Tyrants! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.179074 seconds.