Author Topic: UNDERSTUDIES: No Understudies Versus the Show Must Go On  (Read 5961 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MatthewShiner

  • Forum Moderators
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA, SMA
  • Current Gig: Freelance Stage Manager; Faculty for UMKC
  • Experience: Professional
As an AEA Stage Manager the thought of “No Understudies” warms my heart and strikes fear in my heart both at the same time.  No one likes rehearsing, teching, polishing a show up in previews, open, and then bang, go back into rehearsal for the understudies.  But, at the same time, without contracted understudies, you will still face the notion by producers that “the show must go on”, and often drop the problem back into the SM’s lap.

(Sigh)

On my current show, we had two ensemble members go out – and it was left to stage management (my entire team) to figure out how to rewrite the show, re-do tracks and, with the help of the fight captain, re-do a battle.  It did require other ensemble members (non-AEA) to volunteer and step up to bat, learning new lines, new blocking, etc.

But, I felt dirty doing it – these actors were not “contracted” to be understudies, they did it “to help out”.  (Technically, it feels like I, as stage manager, was “hiring” this actor to do a new role . . . which is not technically legal.)

What is frustrating that if management had sat down, they could have understudied the entire show with the current ensemble and just one outside male and female swing, but theaters see understudies as an excessive cost that often is unneeded, and then, when sickness or something else strikes, the magic of good stage management can jump in and solve the problem.  AEA actors tend to not like to understudy roles for a show they are already acting in (extra work, no real extra money) – so in the struggle to cast, to add the “additional duty of understudying” is often a deal breaker. 

Part of me feels that is a theater makes the decision to have no understudies, they are making the decision to cancel a show if someone is ill.  But, management does not see it that way (although, I do have to say, I have worked on shows where canceling was the preferred choice then sending on someone with a script.).    Although I feel like I can sit around during previews, and come up with “plans” on my own, I honestly feel like management needs to contract those actors . . . to be fair . . . and give them some lead time.

I am torn . . . this is one of the first times in my life I feel like hunkering down and tossing the problem up the ladder rather then be the superhero and solve the problem on the fly.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Edit to add topic tag. - Maribeth
« Last Edit: Feb 11, 2013, 08:11 pm by Maribeth »
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anything posted here as in my own personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of my employer - whomever they be at a given moment in time.

PSMKay

  • Site Founder
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
    • http://www.smnetwork.org
  • Affiliations: None.
  • Current Gig: SMNetwork *is* my production.
  • Experience: Former SM
Re: No Understudies Versus the Show Must Go On
« Reply #1 on: Feb 11, 2013, 02:01 pm »
Producers will not hire understudies until they encounter a situation where the show does not go on due to their absence.

MatthewShiner

  • Forum Moderators
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA, SMA
  • Current Gig: Freelance Stage Manager; Faculty for UMKC
  • Experience: Professional
Re: No Understudies Versus the Show Must Go On
« Reply #2 on: Feb 11, 2013, 02:04 pm »
So, yes, it's  a never ending circle . . . we don't have understudies, but everyone works "for the good of the show" and we will pull it off . . . proving there is no need for stage managers.

Who ever said the "Show Must Go On" had money in the show.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anything posted here as in my own personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of my employer - whomever they be at a given moment in time.

nick_tochelli

  • Loved and Missed.
  • Permanent Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 448
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Nick Tochelli's Blog: The Backstage Ballet
  • Affiliations: AEA, SMA
  • Current Gig: PM- Godlight Theatre Company/Inside Sales:Barbizon Lighting
  • Experience: Former SM
Re: No Understudies Versus the Show Must Go On
« Reply #3 on: Feb 11, 2013, 03:24 pm »
It's vicious to sit there and toss a problem at an individual who is hired to be a problem solver when it's something you should have planned for from the beginning.

I have to agree with your idea that if they don't hire understudies, it's on the producer's head. If the director didn't plan for the contingency and the cast wasn't aware they were to understudy in the event of illness, there shouldn't even be a conversation in my mind. Show's off. If this then prompts them to hire understudies or cast them from within the company that's another issue.

Shouldn't the "upgrade" in status to the Non-AEA members create some sort of havoc in terms of Equity contracts too? If they perform as an understudy for a week, do they get paid as an AEA actor? Do they have to join the union? Who pays for it? I worked on a show where we had understudies for a 5 performance weekend. Why spend that money on 5 performances? Because the producers absolutely wanted a contingency plan in the event of injury or illness.

MatthewShiner

  • Forum Moderators
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA, SMA
  • Current Gig: Freelance Stage Manager; Faculty for UMKC
  • Experience: Professional
Re: No Understudies Versus the Show Must Go On
« Reply #4 on: Feb 11, 2013, 04:07 pm »
It's complicated on many, many levels.

In most cases that I have dealt with on the fly it's has been non-AEA covering non-AEA. 

But, to me the big issue is that is a contractual issue . . . A SM should not be "hiring" anyone, and in these heat of the moment . . . turning to someone and saying, "hey, can you go on?" is equal to hiring.

What I think it is interesting is the question how AEA would define "emergency" - does a producer opting NOT to have understudies, constitute an emergency when an actor goes out?

Luckily, in my current situation I have a great cast, and a good management team that has allowed me some freedom - and we were prepared for a possible "emergency" unofficially, but not contractually - so it wasn't a complete shock.

 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anything posted here as in my own personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of my employer - whomever they be at a given moment in time.

BARussell

  • SM Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Current Gig: Assistant to the Producers at Goodspeed Musicals
  • Experience: Professional
Re: No Understudies Versus the Show Must Go On
« Reply #5 on: Feb 12, 2013, 01:40 pm »
It's vicious to sit there and toss a problem at an individual who is hired to be a problem solver when it's something you should have planned for from the beginning.

They do it because they know we will solve the problem, and they know people will step up, it is a dirty trick, but it happens, and at the end of the day the money is okay, and stage management magic has overcome once again. I am also under the impression that if we do not have understudies then there is an expectation of cancelling when someone is out. It really is "not our job" to hire people, which is exactly what we are doing hiring and casting.
"We don't negotiate with weirdos!"

NomieRae

  • Permanent Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 246
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA, SMA, Adelphi University
Re: UNDERSTUDIES: No Understudies Versus the Show Must Go On
« Reply #6 on: Feb 13, 2013, 12:44 pm »
Oh boy have I ever seen both sides of this coin -

I have done plenty of shows in a short run where something happened and so-and-so went on book in hand. Audience lap it up, and for certain shows it works just as well. Some actors love that adrenaline... but it makes SM's want to tear their hair out. Should shows with a short run and small cast have to hire understudies? I don't seem to think so.

Conversely, I worked on a long running musical type of show where we had two swings for a cast of 8. One male swung on for 2 male parts, and the third guy learned one extra part so we always had a cover. One lady swung on for all the women AND was dance captain (she had to sing alto, mezzo and soprano..I mean, cmon shes a saint.) The producers originally thought they were an unneeded expense, but when an actor sprained his ankle mid-performance during previews, having swings became oddly convenient.

But we didn't have a cover for the two LEADS of the show which were harder to find swings for due to them being beat-boxers. So for many months we ran that way, our poor cast members were denied time off or vacations because they couldn't bring in a sub for that time. Other actors could take 2 personal days to attend a wedding but our lead couldn't take his contracted vacation to see his family because we had no replacement.

Also, once we got replacements or short term subs, due to the show being so music and dance oriented every time we needed a sub flown in from another cast there were put in rehearsals. We were ALWAYS doing put in rehearsals. If we weren't putting in a sub, we were having brush up rehearsals for our swings to stay fresh on the vocal parts.

The icing on the cake was when one of our leads had his back go out and wasn't able to do the show for 3 days. We had no time to fly in and train a sub, no one in the cast was able to do his part (beat-boxing) so the PSM and I had to create a contingency show with only 7 performers and call emergency rehearsal via skype with our composer to make sure the percussion parts were covered in each number. It was a harrowing and stressful day, and we made it work. Our producers beamed that we made it work. Did they ever hire a beatbox swing? Nope.

Ultimately if we can make it work with the minimal tools were given, it seems producers would rather compliment our crisis management skills than to adequately plan for situations that will arise. Sigh.


Post Merge: Feb 13, 2013, 12:50 pm
Also -

This isn't necessarily just a trend for small companies either. I just recently learned that for ANNIE currently running on B'way, until very recently they had one orphan who could swing on for Annie and no swings for the rest of the orphans (around 6-7 girls I believe)

« Last Edit: Feb 13, 2013, 12:50 pm by NomieRae »
--Naomi
"First, I honor life, and with it my life in theatre." -- Jacques Burdick

On_Headset

  • Permanent Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 402
    • View Profile
  • Experience: College/Graduate
Re: UNDERSTUDIES: No Understudies Versus the Show Must Go On
« Reply #7 on: Feb 14, 2013, 05:52 pm »
Quote
Our producers beamed that we made it work. Did they ever hire a beatbox swing? Nope.
I'd be willing to bet a small sum of money that you were paid neither for the time spent coordinating this affair, nor a bonus for saving their show. (In any other industry you'd be under a mountain of cash if you pulled this off.)

KMC

  • Forum Moderators
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Current Gig: Project Manager, Systems Integration
  • Experience: Former SM
Re: UNDERSTUDIES: No Understudies Versus the Show Must Go On
« Reply #8 on: Feb 15, 2013, 08:35 am »
Quote
Our producers beamed that we made it work. Did they ever hire a beatbox swing? Nope.
I'd be willing to bet a small sum of money that you were paid neither for the time spent coordinating this affair, nor a bonus for saving their show. (In any other industry you'd be under a mountain of cash if you pulled this off.)

I'm not sure I agree with the mountain of cash statement.  Sure, in the real world you could use the positive performance as leverage in your next salary negotation, but there's nothing saying you can't do that as an SM.  They may not pay up in theatre, but often don't pay up in non-theatre lines of work either.  The exception would be a position where you have defined performance/commission goals or a specific bonus structure, but that is not the norm. 

My boss has given me some nice kudos the last few months, unfortunately it was not followed by an extra mountain (or even a molehill) of cash!
Get action. Do things; be sane; don’t fritter away your time; create, act, take a place wherever you are and be somebody; get action. -T. Roosevelt

NomieRae

  • Permanent Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 246
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA, SMA, Adelphi University
Re: UNDERSTUDIES: No Understudies Versus the Show Must Go On
« Reply #9 on: Feb 17, 2013, 12:52 pm »
Quote
Our producers beamed that we made it work. Did they ever hire a beatbox swing? Nope.
I'd be willing to bet a small sum of money that you were paid neither for the time spent coordinating this affair, nor a bonus for saving their show. (In any other industry you'd be under a mountain of cash if you pulled this off.)

A mountain of cash? Oh, never. We did get the overtime rate for the few hours of emergency rehearsal which was spelled out in our contract, of course. Ultimately the satisfaction of a job well done came more from the trust we gained in our cast who knew that when presented with a less than ideal situation, that the SM team would make it work in a way that didn't screw anyone over. (If we hadn't performed we obviously wouldn't have gotten paid, and we all needed that paycheck)

Do I use these scenarios when interviewing or contract negotiating? Sure, but I also be sure to mention that my job is about preventative measures versus emergency band-aids. If the proper swings had been hired we would have never had the drama.
--Naomi
"First, I honor life, and with it my life in theatre." -- Jacques Burdick

 

riotous