The Stranger: One winter in the early 1980s, the Empty Space Theatre was running a production of Tartuffe when one of the actors bailed to be in a movie. "Midrun and he was gone in two days," said Carl Sander, a longtime theater artist who now works at the Burke Museum. Losing an actor to another gig can be a producer's nightmare.
17 comments:
I have strong opinions about people leaving their jobs early. I personally think that you need to stick out the job. You signed a contract and told your employer that you would do this job. So what does leaving early tell them? You are flaky, immature and rude. Having a good reputation is important, especially in the theatre world. Your whole career rides on knowing people and making connections. If someone left a show early to do something else, I would tell others about it to give them a heads up if that person comes around again. Why would you leave a job early and take a big risk in loosing future jobs from other people that they know? Word travels fast in the theatre world. I wouldn’t want to put future jobs on the line to leave a job early for something else. Just stick it out, you’ll be thankful in the long run.
I’ve had to deal with actors and technicians, and members of my own stage management team bailing on shows. The actor had a very good reason (it was either stay with the show that paid him nothing or take a job that would pay for a good chunk of college) and he communicated with the director throughout the whole process so no one was blindsided. If someone is going to bail that’s the way, I’d want it to be done. There’s the lowest chance of burning bridges and there’s actually a good reason for doing it. Unfortunately, in my experience that’s the less common form of bailing on a show. The other times I’ve had to deal with this its just been people leaving. Sometimes they’ve had a reason and sometimes they haven’t. Either way they normally don’t tell the director until right before hand and the show suffers because of it. Now most of the times this has happened to me its been temporary and the person came back, but its still a breach of principle. So I guess if you really have to leave a show or you get an offer you can’t refuse go ahead and take it. But at the same time don’t do it all the time or it really will damage your reputation (especially if your reasons seem suspect to others).
I do think that bailing a show for “professional reasons” (especially without early notice) is an irresponsible and disrespectful thing to do. This compromises the entire production team’s financial income, and the work they’ve put forth to waste. Although I understand Siano’s statement "If something more lucrative comes along, you have to take it. Those are the unwritten rules of theater”, I don’t completely agree with it. If everyone starts to bail on productions, then what’s the point of contracts? Does this automatically justify bailing despite the complications it brings? If an actor/crew is leaving the production, the least they could do is notify the team ahead of time.
As someone who has her fair share of quits under her belt, I can say that part of my stance is pretty simple: Is this making you happy? Does this production need you? If you can answer yes to either, of course you should stay. Artistic fulfillment and following through on your word are two of the only things we can really control in this life, and should be cherished. However, the thorny mess begins to grow when either one of those answers are no, or you get a chance for a job where both answers are yes. I cannot blame someone who feels useless on a production leaving for more artistic exploration, but unless you are entirely sure that the show can go on without you, how can someone justify leaving. I know that we need to eat, and sometimes money is the winning factor, but I still believe that there is a promise made when one enters a theatre, which is that everyone needs each other. A production cannot happen without every member of the cast and creative team doing their best, and that is a bond of necessity. Breaking that unspoken promise is sometimes necessary, but should not be done without considering the cost.
During orientation and into the first week of classes I heard a lot from School of Drama faculty about understanding that your actions have consequences. That you can’t just skip classes or crew calls, and that even if you have to miss to be sick there may be substantial things that you missed. With our field being so collaborative, part of understanding the consequences of your actions means understanding that your choice to not show up may set back everyone involved in the production. Now, if you leave it at that it’s very easy to rule the dropping of a project mid run as unprofessional and ridiculous. However, it’s not simple. Understanding the consequences of your actions also entails being able to decide when the action is worth the consequences. Like Meaker said “People gotta eat.” I don’t want to feed into the “I’m not here to make friends, I’m here to win” mentality, but as adults, and even as professional adults, leaving a show is a decision we have to make. It’s a tough judgment call, but in some cases it’s the right call to make for yourself.
Bailing on a show causes many problems for the entire company because everyone is affected. I understand that if a better opportunity comes you should take it, but a person has some obligation to the project they are on especially if they signed a contract. It really screws the company and show over if there aren’t any understudies. Small companies that are doing small shows usually do not have understudies because they cannot afford to pay another actor to be there and not perform. If one of their actors bails in the middle of a run then they will be in big trouble because they need to find another actor to replace them and they might not have the money to pay that actor. The other choice is to cancel the performances and refund tickets, which would also cause them to lose a lot of money. There usually is not a good outcome for a theatre company that loses and actor mid run.
I feel like this is a really important topic to talk about. Even in the short time I’ve been working in theatre I’ve been involved in two bail out situations. The first happened in a small storefront in Chicago. There was an accident on stage and the actor who was hurt in the incident decided to leave the show. It was tough because the show had opened just a week earlier and finding a replacement was difficult. The role ended up being played by three different actors. I understood why the actor left their safety had been in jeopardy and they didn’t want to bring that fear to the stage every night. The second happened this summer. We had an actress bail for a movie opportunity after we had take measurements and had started to plan the build. She was quickly replaced and that was that. I feel like smaller companies get screwed sometimes when a bail happens. They can’t afford to pay good actors enough so they lose them.
I never experienced with bail out situation before but I completely sees how much of a night mare it can be. Although I only heard a story from one of the singers this past summer that he was once in a situation when one of the principles did not behave well enough or something and did something severely unacceptable and thus the theatre he had contract with has to bailed him out and replaced with someone immediately because they came to the donors attended final dress or something. Crazy part was that that awful principle got bailed out the evening before, the new person who came in next afternoon, all ready with blockings, already has wig and costumes, and ready to go. It was insane, but I guess it's easier for opera since there are many singers who live their career life playing only one role so of course they know everything and learning new blocking which might be slim and flexible should not be hard, or even they might already used to work with that set design and costumes before. I can see that it might be more tricky for straight plays or musicals or new works where everything can be brand new.
We had a similar concern this summer, which led to the hiring an understudy.
It’s surprising how much theatre tickets are sold based on the performer vs the actual content.
I think that this is a tricky question. I mean, capitalism. If you have a better job that comes along, I mean, who’s to say that you shouldn’t do what’s best for your financial and professional wellbeing.
But that goes both ways, doesn’t it? If you quit a show mid-run, that burns a lot of bridges.
I guess there’s something to be said about professionalism and doing the job that you’ve taken. It’s pretty rough to leave a production high and dry, especially this show mentioned in the article. They didn’t have an understudy, and they ended up cancelling the show. For a small theatre company, that could be the last nail in the coffin. That could put an entire company under.
An actor bailing out of a show is a tricky issue, as it affects everybody involved in a production. Last year I worked on a production of Guys and Dolls, and right before tech week one of the dancers was kicked out due to attendance issues. Although this isn't the exact same problem as a bail out, it had the same affect. There were no understudies so all of the dance number had to be re-choreographed, which lead to many late-night rehearsals for the other dancers. Going from 12 dancers to 11 really messed up the symmetry and formations of the choreography, and caused us all a great deal of unnecessary stress. After seeing this my personal opinion is that an actor should never bail out if they can avoid it. Obviously medical and family emergencies are an exception to this rule, but a new opportunity should not be used as a reason to leave. Some opportunities may only come once in a lifetime, however keeping your word to your fellow cast members and crew should be viewed as equally important.
The idea that one artist's loss is another's gain says a lot about theatre as a profession. Yes, it is important to remain true to the company which you have committed yourself to. Yes, you must do all you can to measure the situation carefully. But at the same time an actor never knows what can come out of that bail. It could be a bad reputation, but it could also be a big break. And more so, it could be a world of gain for the person replacing them. One of the last shows I worked on in high school - The Sound of Music - experienced a great gain from one actor's bail when our Captain Von Trapp dropped out. His understudy had been the popular choice, but the young man selected had apparently proved himself to the director and taken the role. When he turned out to be incapable of handling the role, our theatre department quietly rejoiced. The understudy, a good friend to all of us, had the talent and the drive to take over the role easily. He was also the type of friend we all knew would benefit personally from the experience of playing a role like this, something that was sure to show in his performance and win over an audience. The difference this made in bringing our production together was monumental, and changed how we all experienced the show for the better. True, it was sad for the original actor cast - but he had so much talent that he would be able to find other ways to shine, and did. His comparatively small loss in dropping out of the show he could not do justice to was a huge win for our company (not to mention our ticket sales and publicity), and freed him up for other performances. What resulted was an impactful performance by a more capable artist. Our company was grateful, and in the end I think so was the person who bailed.
This article raises a really interesting discussion, because bailing mid run was something we often dealt with in high school, but I had assumed wasn’t as bug if a problem in professional theatre. I know how damaging it can be to a show to have someone leave suddenly. I once stage managed a show where one of the leading actors had too many absences and had to be pulled from the show three weeks out. It was extremely stressful trying to catch up the freshman who had been chosen to replace him. But I had assumed that in professional theatre people were more likely to stay the course of the show, since conflicts like academics/attendance policies, sports playoffs, and “My parents booked a surprise vacation” wouldn’t really be an issue. But now I see that there are other, newer factors involved, like finances and reputation. It’s a very difficult decision, whether to leave a show for a better offer. I honestly go back and forth on the issue, because if the offer was good enough I would leave the show. But on the other hand, I know exactly the amount of work that would have to be done to keep the show running. It’s an interesting challenge that is unique to theatre, and really should be decided on a case by case basis.
It breaks my heart to hear that actors would bail on a show for any reason. Like in the article I too believe that “you’re word is your bond,” because when you think about it you only are as good as your word. As human beings we often lack desire to reach outside of our comfort zone of people we know when looking for people to work on projects. So when networking we put faith in the people we know who have shown that we can trust them because their actions have never betrayed or gone against their words to link us to people they trust to do good work and be helpful to us. It is just a general rule in society that we are judged based on our actions and how they relate to what our words. So the idea that an actor bails on a show for a better offer because they need money, I still believe is no excuse and reflects poorly on their character. It shows to me that they weren’t really cut out for this tough business and are looking for an easy way to success. As the saying goes cutting corners makes a circle because at the end of the day no one ever truly knows who other people know, so burning bridges today can cut off a lot more opportunities in the future.
Probably one of the only situations that has happened to me once in my years of acting, I take that back, twice. To have an actor quit is something you don’t want to see in the rehearsal process much less the run of the show. The first time it happened, it wasn’t necessarily anybody quitting, but that because the actors couldn’t get along they created enough drama in the rehearsal process that the director said enough is enough. The director dropped a few members of the cast, changed the show, and I ended up acting in the show instead which was great for me, just maybe not everyone else that had to go through the drama. So it sucks, I mean what can you really do about it. Actors aren’t as dispensable as other jobs, because unless the backup is good and can pick up on the lines quickly, that is a lot of unfortunate down time to be had to get back to where you were before.
This is actually a topic that I think would be worth discussing in a class for at least one day. Knowing when to bail on a production, and really more importantly when to not bail, is something that is definitely a fine line, and it can screw people over in more ways than one. The article mentioned a system where you ask yourself three questions, ‘Is the pay good?’, ‘Will it further my career?’, and ‘Will I have a good time?’. If the answer is yes to either, than you should take the contract. Though seemingly logical, that method does not consider the context of the situation. If I have been working at a theatre for 10 years, and I get the job offer of a life time, but I have to bail out on designing the show, late into the design phase, is that right of me? Even if all three questions are satisfied, I wouldn’t be so sure. The thing about art is that it doesn’t lend itself to having someone pick up your work as you put it down. It can be done, and if it absolutely has to, it will, but at what point is it ok to break the reputation you’ve earned? To sell out?
I guess I can see this Diva move to be a good or bad thing. It all depends on how crucial they are to the show and how well liked they are. However, I would assume that a understudy would be ready to take their spot if anything happened. Hollywood may have a different process, but if I had a famous actor on my set the decided to leave it would be because he was immature team member and was hated from the rest of the production team. Losing someone like that wouldn't bother me that much, especially if there isn't much money put towards that actor. Then there are also those instances when the actor is incredible but they feel they got a better offer some where else. That I can see being sad, however it shouldn't be too big of a problem. Productions should always be ready for things like this to happen. They need to have an understudy they want just as much as the main actor so if anything does happen there is a replacement that is just as good or potentially better than the last.
"All bailing are not created equally" is a nice turn of phrase to describe the overall theme of this article. What makes theater so similar to other professions is the miraculous upward ascent--you start off in the chorus of a low-budget production and work your way center stage in a more desirable theater. That's just the nature of any business. When another opportunity comes along that may advance your career, it is acceptable to pursue it--but to what extent? This blurred line is the main topic here, as those who have committed to a show are obligated to see it to the end, right? The article argues that this isn't always the case, and to make matters even more complicated, from different perspectives each side can be justified. Yet, as mentioned, being an adult in any industry means building some wonderful and successful bridges, but also burning some on the way along. We can't please everyone all the time, and sometimes, although not always, things work out for the best--stage hands become stars, the obscure actor who jumps ship reaches their big break.
Post a Comment