The Producer's Perspective: I was but a wee boy of an actor when the Non Union national touring market exploded on the scene in the early, early ’90s. I remember auditioning for the national tour of Grand Hotel while I was still in college (I didn’t get it), and then getting cast in the national tour of South Pacific just as I was graduating (I didn’t take it).
3 comments:
I've been hearing about the issues with non-union national tours for quite a while now. I think that soon, theres a good chance that theres gonna be a breaking point reached in the touring side of the industry. I personally think its a little ridiculous that Equity is promoting the idea that non-equity productions are far less valuable than equity productions in the first place. While its clear that one is employing equity actors who equity considers to be more deserving of employment than non-equity actors, the idea is so biased that no theatre audience is going to catch on and choose not to attend a performance simply because its non-equity.
This whole argument seems to be the equity actors bullying non-equity actors because they are out of work. This is one reason why unions sometimes frustrate me. I understand that they represent the workers so they are not exploited by their employers and in that sense I think that they're very useful but then instances like this come around and I question whether or not I should support organizations that do things like this. In my opinion there are a lot of non-union actors that are just as talented, if not more talented than their equity counterparts and they should not be treated as lower quality because of their union status. If a company of non-union actors put on a great rendition of "The Music Man" they should be allowed to play bigger venues and charge more. As a theatre goer I couldn't care less if the actor is in the union or not all I'm paying for is to see a good show.
It is a blessing that people come to these shows in the first place. They don't have to buy these tickets at all. Parents would much rather take their kids to the movies for $10 instead of paying $100 to go the theatre. At least where I'm from, most of the seats are occupied by humans over the age of 50. And from those, and the few of the younger generation, only a handful really understand equity vs. non-equity. I am studying theatre and to be honest, I'm only beginning to understand. So in all reality, it is unrealistic to think that tours will all become equity simply because audiences don't care. They just want to see a good show. They're paying for it. With that, a lot of people seeing these shows don't really know what what a good show is. A lot of them have never seen a Broadway production. So yes, it would be great to put Broadway caliber shows on the road, but right now, that doesn't always happen. And that's just how it is.
Post a Comment