Saturday, October 20, 2007
One NYC Stagehand
(Theatreforte): "One NYC Stagehand (who has a blog) posted some great food for thought in the comments to my post about the current stagehand/producer conflict on Broadway. Everyone should read it, so I'm pasting it up right here."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
that stage hand had something very smart to say. We have been talking in theatre management about the rising investments of corporations. These big name corporations do not follow how theatre has been run in the past and as a result they do not always understand how the theatrical forms have grown and changed over the years. The labor required for the load ins of shows have only increased even if the labor required to run a show has gone down.
Here are two terrific comments. I've been expecting the voice from a stagehand. Since the past articles were all talking about the situation and negotiation and were reported by the journalist and the observing writer, we had no idea at all about the opinion of another side.
A kind of stupid producer or administrator really exists. They don't understand the technical stuff at all and don't respect the technicians at all. They just dress BCBG to talk about Art~
There is a famous lady producer, who had MA of NYU and had some sort of working experience in States, in my country. She is famous not for her ability, but for her stingy policy and no knowledge about tech. Many years ago, when she just came back, she had once counted the number of lights on the EX with the lighting rental company's quotation in her hand. Then, the numbers on the EX were more than the quotation! because the rental company usually prepared more stuff for the adjustment needed in place. As a result, this lady paid more money than she had expected.
Going back to One's comment, the Broadway producers might need more pre-production work, sincerely try to understand tech, and respect the technicians. After all, WHO make the show happen?! As to the crew number of Load In and run show and the working hour, from the PM's position, I prefer to have the actual required number of stagehand and the reasonable hour.
It is very interesting hearing this whole issue from the view of a stagehand. I am curious to see what the end result will be. I am just wondering how much longer this will drag on. It seems that one side will decide on something, and then instead of acting on it (say the strike) they negotiate again. I am not saying this is bad. I just am curious about the outcome.
This stagehand had an excellent point when he said that they are trying to save money the wrong way. Its not the hourly wages paid to stagehands that are dragging the producers down. Usually, that is the effect of picking a dumb show that doesn't sell. And that is what the producers job is to prevent, not to undercut the hardworking employees that make those shows work.
Production management has a lot of good things to say. There is no way that either side of this argument is going to get exactly what they want, and there is no reason either side should get what they want. It seems as though these two groups are not communicating at all about the real issues. This is the first glance I have had into the true meat of the argument and it seems that both sides are hiding behind false fronts. It all comes down to number of people to work and install, not technology, not profits, just numbers of people working. The producers believe they have to hire to many stagehands and the union doesn’t. The union is afraid that if they let the producers change the rules they will be taken advantage of again. Until both parties find a common ground they are just going to keep spinning their wheels to no avail. It seems as though both sides are thinking “We the few, who have done so much with so little…”
Post a Comment