NYTimes.com: Some of the sets looked flimsy, the acting was uneven, and the signature red wig needed bounce. But none of that mattered to Lilly Hickman, 6, as she watched “Annie,” presented here by Broadway in Chicago, a booker of national musical tours.
2 comments:
I think this is such a borderline issue that has so much you need to consider. My first reaction is to say "hey, it shouldnt matter whether these performers are equity or not as long as they are putting on a great show. Their ticket sales shouldnt decline because equity is trying to boost theirs." On the other hand, as someone who is already collecting points in order to one day be a part of the union, I can see why they are trying to serve the people they work for. The reality of the situation is yes, these people love the entertainment industry and dont want to harm it. But they also have jobs. And their job isnt to work in favor of the common good. Its to work in favor of the equity members. In that respect, I can totally see justification for their campaign.
the First thing that Came to My mind when I read this article was that there is no guarantee of quality, even if a show is Broadway, much less Equity. I understand the instinct of equity to protect itself, absolutely, but I also think that the manner in which they did so was more than a little bit scummy. Implying that only equity shows are good (or just downright stating it) can only end up being negative for the wider theatre community. I don't see a positive result when Actors and directors and other artists, or anyone else involved in the business for that matter, starts sabotaging each other. It's just going to lead to ill will. It's the right thing to do, protecting Equity members, but it's absolutely the wrong way to do it.
Post a Comment