1511
« on: Aug 21, 2009, 04:48 pm »
The issue is complicated from a producers’ standpoint – and that was the perspective given in the article. (Please note, this has been an issue on several shows, including, as I remember, Spamalot.)
Let’s assume that the producers have good understudies, and they are well rehearsed – after all it’s in their best interest to have that be the case. (Although not always done on shows, including long running Broadway shows.) AEA does require understudies and does require a certain amount of rehearsal. The show has been playing for quite awhile, so I am sure these understudies are not only rehearsed, but have performances under their belt.
But, there is a perceived notion that the level of performance is lessened when the understudy goes on. (That may or not be the case – sometimes I have had understudies/standbys be better then the original cast. AND, we all have experienced that when an understudy goes on, sometimes all the other performances rise a bit to help out the “new guy”.) The producers want to protect the perceived value of their show. As an audience member, when I see a whole host of understudies on, my first reaction is, and this is as an informed audience member, that the performances may be sub the typical performance, especially when they are subbing for a Tony Award winning performance. One of the main reasons I go see a show in New York, rather then wait for the road-show version, is to see these award winning performances.
Personally, I was in the audience for one of the first performances of The Producers that Nathan Lane was out. The entire time I watched the show, which I thoroughly enjoyed, somewhere in the back of my head, I was wondering how much better the show would have been with Nathan Lane in the performances. Luckily, I was able to go back and see him perform. In the end, the show wasn’t that much different – but I did enjoy seeing the original cast member in the performance.
There is also an “insider” notion – that producers know – that when a show in waning, more and more people will call “out” – for whatever reason. So, a show with a lot of understudies performing can look like the show is about to close – and if that word gets out, ticket sales can begin to slump. (Who wants to see the show that is about to close due to poor ticket sales?)
A director can easily get upset about this issue as well, because in almost all situations, an understudy is not rehearsed or directed by the original directed and is either put in by an assistant, a dance captain or the stage manager. And with their name on the show, they want it to be as true to their original production as possible.
I think this is a very complicated issues. I think it has a lot to do with how our union covers outages with pay and without pay – calling in sick doesn’t require approval, doesn’t require pre-planning, and they still get paid. When you see patterns developing in outages (like higher percentages of “sicknesses” being on Tuesday and Sunday . . . you can’t but help question the legitimacy of these outages.)
I also think there is a generation issue involved in this – in general, there is an changing attitude in younger employees. Recently articles have mentioned there is less employee/employer attitude, people are staying with jobs less time, and job switch a lot. How that general trend applies to theatre could be debated and tracked as well. But, I do have to say in regional theatre I have noticed that there is a generation change in younger actors versus older actors about calling in sick, missing performances, etc. There is a slight deterioration in work ethic. (Although I have to say the extreme “the show must go on” attitude may have been too far in one direction.) I also note that young actors tend to push themselves a little more outside of rehearsal, less willing to scale back their non-work life to deal with the pressure and demands of a 8-show week on a open-ended run. Yes, this is difficult . . . but it is the contract they signed.
I also think it is important to note . . . it was the director who spoke to them, not the producers. It was artist to artist, so I think more artistic concerns were in play here.
Show Posts