Author Topic: Understudies, and actors "calling out"  (Read 3071 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

juliz1106

  • SM Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 122
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA
  • Current Gig: TYA Stage Manager, Marriott Theatre Lincolnshire
  • Experience: Professional
Understudies, and actors "calling out"
« on: Aug 08, 2011, 12:13 am »
Background: I'm subbing for the PSM for a revue musical.  I'm doing about half of the shows each week while the PSM is in rep rehearsing another show (so I cover the matinees while he rehearses, and he does the evening shows).  I also subbed for a week for him while he was on vacation, so I've become fairly familiar with the cast and show at this point.  We have 2 understudies that cover the 5 principal roles, and attend every performance, to standby in case they're needed.

The other day I saw in a performance report that one of these covers was going on on a day I would be subbing (today), but only for the second of the two shows.  Her put-in was scheduled yesterday before the 2-show day (already a bit of a no-no).  Turns out that another cast member (let's call her "A") was sick yesterday, so the other cover (not the one originally scheduled), also had a put-in yesterday and ended up going on in the evening show.  Today I arrive and discover that both of these understudies will be going on ("A" is not better).  As far as I know from the PSM's notes, all is well and both are prepared and ready to go on - as one understudy was already scheduled to perform, and the other had one show already under her belt.

But once the cast begins to arrive, I start to hear another side of the story.  Apparently the scheduled understudy's performance today was just so she'd get the chance to go on.  The principal actor she'd be replacing (let's call her "B") did not have an excused conflict, she just planned to "call out" for that show so the understudy could get her feet wet in the role.  Sounds like a nice gesture, but it's not something I've run into before, and certainly not something condoned by producers.  In any case, it was something that did not absolutely HAVE to happen today, since it was just done out of the goodness of B's heart.

And that's when it gets icky.  Yesterday, A arrived for the scheduled put-in and said she didn't feel well enough to go on.  Instead of at that point canceling (or pushing back) the scheduled put-in so that A's understudy could prepare to go on instead, A was pressured to perform in the first show, B's understudy had her put-in, and an additional emergency put-in was scheduled for A's understudy between shows.  So on a 2-show day, the cast had not one but two put-n rehearsals, and the emergency replacement was not the priority.

Clearly, I was not the PSM in the situation yesterday, or I might have made a different call, but today I was, and several cast members wanted the issue rectified for today's performance.  As far as the cast was concerned (and I tend to agree with them on this), B's understudy - who was only scheduled to go on for fun, not for a legitimate conflict - should have been told that she couldn't perform today, so that A's understudy could go on - because A had a legitimate emergency (illness) that took her out of the show.  Instead, we had 3 original cast members, and 2 understudies playing our 5 principal roles.  And B actually watched the show from the house.  And apparently - all of this was done with the consent of the producers.  I found myself quite appalled that this was allowed, but couldn't find any rule that specifically prohibited it.

Is this kind of "calling out" of a show in order to allow an understudy to perform a typical practice?  And wouldn't an emergency situation - like an illness - trump this activity?

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: Understudies, and actors "calling out"
« Reply #1 on: Aug 08, 2011, 11:31 am »
If this was done with the consent of the producers, it's just a bitter pill to swallow. It's their show, and if they want to create inter-cast chaos by allowing B to call out of a show for "no reason" that's on their shoulders.

And if I'm reading your situation correctly, A's understudy would not have been prepared to go on without the put in rehearsal, correct? So A being pressured into performing that show while sick was a more solid plan than allowing A's understudy to go on who hadn't been put in yet.

Did B tell the producers it was simply because she wanted her understudy to get a chance to perform, or did she give them a reason that would make them not want to allow her onstage (like vocal exhaustion)? The cast may know something the producers don't, but if B lied to the producers you certainly can't fault them for protecting one of their principle actors.



juliz1106

  • SM Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 122
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA
  • Current Gig: TYA Stage Manager, Marriott Theatre Lincolnshire
  • Experience: Professional
Re: Understudies, and actors "calling out"
« Reply #2 on: Aug 08, 2011, 12:47 pm »
I guess the issue for the bulk of the cast is that there was a put-in scheduled, but instead of prioritizing the put-in for the understudy who would most likely be needed to perform that night (but who was not originally scheduled), the emergency scenario that had arisen was ignored.  The understudy who didn't need to perform that day was put-in first, which then pressured the sick A to perform when she wasn't well enough to do so (which in turn forced the entire cast to re-arrange the order of the first show so she could skip a song she hadn't enough voice to sing), and then it triggered a second emergency put-in for A's understudy so that she could be prepared to go on - during the 45 minute break between shows - and then perform in that evening's performance.  B's understudy was going in the following day, but because her put-in had been scheduled - even though it wasn't for a legitimate conflict - it was put before the needs of an ailing actor.  There is no reason that I can see that A's understudy couldn't have been put-in the day she was going to perform, once it became clear that an emergency put-in was needed for another actor.

And true, both A and B's understudies needed a put-in in order to be ready to perform.  But that is simply an Equity rule, that could have easily been followed had the emergency understudy been put-in first, and if there wasn't enough time for B's understudy to be put-in after the emergency, she shouldn't have been.  And no, B did not lie about her condition and say she needed vocal rest or actually "call out" of the performance the following day at all.  She in fact showed up at half hour, signed in, brought cocktails to drink after the show with the cast, and sat and watched the show in the house.  All while another understudy was performing in lieu of a sick actor, but without having had enough actual rehearsal time scheduled to have felt prepared for the role.

And I for one was shocked when I'd heard that the producers seemed to be okay with this idea.  It was enough of a surprise to me that they were unwilling to reschedule this understudy's performance day - to any other day in the run where another understudy was not performing - simply because she'd invited family to the show that night, and this was her only chance to perform.

 

riotous