Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.024973 seconds.